HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COUNCIL CONSOLIDATION AND BETTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (14:58): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Planning about out-of-council areas on land not within a council consolidation and better development plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: On 29 April, I asked a question with regard to a specific area of land affected by this BPD, and I understand that that particular piece of land has now been annexed off into a separate BPD, part 2. I further understand that part 1 was gazetted on 3 July. The 28-day period for perusal by the ERD Committee lapsed, so it will not appear before that committee.

Part 1 has the effect of a massive grab of coastal land along the perimeter of the West Coast. Much of this land was only recently resurveyed and freeholded at the expense of landholders. It also introduces far-reaching changes to development issues at Andamooka. My questions are:

1. Can the minister assure this council that all relevant members of parliament were consulted on this BDP and, if so, when and how?

2. Were adjoining local councils consulted or informed?

3. Were all affected landowners informed and consulted?

4. What method did this consultation take?

5. How many attended the public consultations and where and when were they held?

6. Why was this land gazetted on a date that made it unlikely, if not impossible, that it would be scrutinised by the ERD Committee of the parliament?

7. This BDP establishes a coastal conservation zone and a coastal settlement zone. What percentage of the affected area is now deemed suitable for settlement?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:00): The honourable member has raised a number of issues. This issue began when the Eyre Peninsula councils developed their own coastal strategy for Eyre Peninsula because of concerns about some of the developments on some of the most prominent coastal areas within our state.

I think the view was taken that just a few of these developments—in most cases, individual houses—could have a significant impact on the coastal amenity of that region. Whereas that was done for the Eyre Peninsula coastal areas, I point out that the adjoining areas, extending from not far out of Ceduna to the west right out to the border of Western Australia, are outside council areas.

It was my concern, consistent with the coastal strategy we intend to implement right cross the state, to protect our coastal areas. Incidentally, given concerns about climate change impacts, the honourable member is probably well aware that there is significant interest in what might happen in terms of zoning these areas. If the predictions in relation to climate change—even the more modest ones—are correct that sea levels will be rising, obviously it would be unwise of governments to support development on any low-lying coastal land.

What I said we would do is rezone the coastal area. The honourable member talked about a massive grab for land. That is just pure nonsense. No-one is grabbing land. What we are doing is rezoning land along the coast to ensure that it is not inappropriately developed. If there is land now used for agricultural purposes, it can continue to be used for that. What we were seeking to do was to get some zoning control over that area to prevent inappropriate development.

Indeed, just in the last day or two, I have taken action in refusing a statement of intent for a proposal by the Streaky Bay council at Cape Bauer. That proposal talks about tourism development, but it is also about land division. I have had the good fortune to visit Cape Bauer, which has some of the most attractive coastal scenery that we have in this state.

To allow a subdivision—which would just be simply setting aside a whole strip of blocks, rather like we have had in the past—right in front of that area would, I think, be inappropriate. I wrote back to the District Council of Streaky Bay and said, 'You signed up as a council to the Eyre Coastal Strategy. That coastal strategy says that any tourism development should be of medium scale and also that it should be cognisant of the environmental and social conditions in the area.' I would suggest that it was totally incompatible with that strategy to suggest that we should have a whole lot of blocks created right in front of a significant area like this. That is not to say that we might never have some appropriate tourism development, but it would have to be appropriate given the principles set out in the coastal strategy for the state which we are adopting. Essentially, that is what was behind the strategy that we applied to the areas out of council area.

Returning to the case of the out-of-council districts near Fowler's Bay, I was surprised when I saw the maps that, in one place, the zoning for this coastal strip went eight kilometres inland. That was the issue. It is Mr and Mrs Smith's property, and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer raised this question some time ago. Because there had been very little opposition to the other parts of the coastal strategy that was implemented, I split off this property near Fowler's Bay so that it could be further examined. DPAC had a look at it and, basically, it said that much of this land that was recommended to be in the coastal zone was in fact low-lying. In fact, it was at or below zero AHD. Basically, it is either at or below sea level.

It was separated from the sea only by a rather low, and I am informed, unstable sand dune. I would have thought that it would be totally irresponsible of me as the minister to allow that land to be rezoned in the future for residential use if it is at or below sea level.

I should point out to the council that this is not just an issue for flooding in the future but, even now, it has a big impact in terms of sewerage. If you want to deal with sewerage in a subdivision, it is very hard to do it if it is at or below zero AHD. Quite obviously, it creates all sorts of problems. As it is, Mr and Mrs Smith had applied for rezoning of their land for residential purposes prior to the introduction of the development plan that I put in, so it would still be considered under the previous development plan. However, any new application under the confirmed development plan for this section of land would not be allowed. The landowners can still use their property for traditional uses, in terms of agriculture and so on; it just means that, for any change in use that was incompatible with the new zoning, it would not be permitted.

I have acted in good faith in having that considered. I am acting on the advice of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, as it looks at all zoning amendments. Its advice was entirely in line with the action I have taken. As far as I am concerned, if the ERD Committee comes up with a different view and it wants to have a look at this again, I am quite happy. If it makes a different recommendation and says, 'Yes, you should build on this land even though it is below sea level,' I am happy to look at it again. However, on the advice that was available to me, I believe it was the only logical solution.

That is not to say that it applies to all of this land. Obviously, the zoning follows boundaries and there may be some of it which is above sea level, although my advice was that a significant proportion of it was below sea level and it just would not be appropriate to have it zoned for residential purposes. Of course, the landowners have the right to test that under the old development plan, given that they had their application lodged before August or September last year, or whenever the deadline was.

If the ERD Committee wishes to examine it, I am quite happy to hear its view. I was under the impression that the ERD Committee's time lines for these matters was based on sitting days rather than actual calendar days. I stand to be corrected if that is not the case, but I am certainly quite relaxed if the ERD Committee wants to have a look at the decision I have made. Further, if it thinks there is an issue to look at, I am happy to look at it also. Certainly, on the evidence presented to me, I believe I have acted in the only proper way that I could.

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