HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SEAFORD HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the leader and Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question regarding the Seaford Heights development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I begin my explanation by referring back to an overseas trip that I took to the Napa Valley in California in 1996. The valley is protected, thanks to a series of initiatives, the Williamson Act giving land tax exemption for farmers who would leave their farms as agricultural land for 10 years, plus Measures J and N in the California legislature. The impact of the Williamson reform was initially to preserve some 93 square kilometres of agricultural land but has since expanded to 121 square kilometres.

In 1990 the local voters passed Measure J, the long title being the Napa Valley Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative. The initiative prevented any rezoning in the area until 2020 unless two-thirds of voters approved of it. Measure P, in 2008, by a 62 per cent majority, extended Measure J by 50 years to 2058. The Williamson Act, Measures J and P have together enabled the protection of the agricultural character and fame of the Napa Valley from urban sprawl.

That brings me back to the question of Seaford Heights, which falls within the bounds of the Willunga Basin as defined by my bill for protecting the basin, a bill which the government refuses to support, even though it is modelled on the Swan Valley in Western Australia and carries the spirit of the Napa Valley in Measure J. Seaford Heights is in the press as recently as today, in the Southern Times Messenger with Mayor Rosenberg commenting on Onkaparinga council declining to proceed with rezoning the area before it went to caretaker mode.

The minister told The Advertiser on 11 September that this 'leaves the government with little alternative but to take over its responsibilities to finalise this'. In today's Messenger the local member for Mawson states he wants to see development of the site delayed until long-term planning of the Willunga Basin has been completed. He states, '…one thing is for certain, we only get to give away this dirt once'. My questions therefore are:

1. Is it a fait accompli that the minister will rubberstamp this approval, now that it has been handed back to him, without listening to the community?

2. Will the government now support my Willunga Basin Protection Bill?

3. If the government will not support my Willunga Basin Protection Bill, does it intend to give kudos to the local member or the government by rebadging my bill and bringing it in as its own bill?

4. Is this government serious about protecting the Willunga Basin's unique characteristics and agricultural and economic opportunities for jobs from urban sprawl?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:48): The first question asked by the honourable member was whether it was a fait accompli that the government would rubberstamp the proposal. I think first of all I should explain to the council exactly what it is at stake here and what the City of Onkaparinga has been studying.

The City of Onkaparinga prepared the Seaford Heights Development Plan Amendment to update the existing Seaford area structure plan and introduce supporting policy and related zone amendments. I remind the council—and the honourable member asked a question about this late last session—that this land has been zoned residential and set aside in various urban growth boundaries under previous governments now for at least 20 years. It has always been envisaged that Seaford Heights would become part of the future growth, and of course part of that area adjoins where the new rail corridor would bring rail to the southern suburbs.

Concurrent public and agency consultation on the development plan amendment, which was being prepared by the City of Onkaparinga, commenced on 13 May 2010 and concluded on 9 July 2010, including a public hearing on 27 July. The subject land of 77 hectares, as I said, has actually been zoned for residential purposes since 1989, and accordingly it was within the urban growth boundary when that was introduced into the planning strategy earlier this decade.

The Land Management Corporation is the developer, and Fairmont Homes has been appointed by the LMC to develop the first stage of the development site. The specific details of how this land will be developed for urban purposes is being updated through the DPA and includes additional commercial land and centres to provide services and employment for local residents. Those details are broadly consistent with implementing the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

As the honourable member said, we are now on the verge of council elections, having gone through this process for some time. I understand that the council members, who had all been briefed on the development plan amendment and had essentially agreed to this and had been undertaking this work on a development plan amendment for some time, have now decided at the last minute to write to me requesting me to rezone the subject land back to rural, notwithstanding that it has been within the urban growth boundary now for at least two decades.

If every council were to do this, there would be virtually no land left. If every council that had a new greenfield area were to take this attitude, of course, there would be absolutely no land available for any future growth for the city. It is interesting to note that just a few months ago in Melbourne, they had released 25,000 hectares of land for the growth of Melbourne. Here we are talking about 77 hectares that has been in the plan for more than 20 years.

That is why I made the comment that I have little option, I believe, but to take over the process, because it is not just a question of a council changing its mind before an election. There are significant issues that I think one could describe as sovereign risk issues here. If one were to allow this sort of flip-flopping policy to develop when, in good faith, people such as Fairmont Homes have been working on a plan and funding it, as I understand it—and it could be to the tune of up to half a million dollars—then really that would be the end of any future growth in this city.

I know there are those in this parliament who might think that it is a good thing if Adelaide were to cease growing but, given that our population is ageing rapidly and the number of people over 75 will treble in the relatively near future, and given that we are now at the stage where, without population growth, the workforce will start to decline for the first time since the industrial revolution, I think those who advocate that position might well contemplate what that is going to mean for the future of this state if that were to happen. It is very easy to oppose everything, but one has to live with the consequences of that.

To say that my taking over that process means that it is a fait accompli that I would accept it is not necessarily the case. Clearly if I were to take over the process then I would need to have before me all the submissions that were referred to the council. Prior to this council decision, I had already had discussions with the local member for the area, Mr Leon Bignell.

I know he has some concerns, as do others in the area, about various aspects of that development. I believe that those aspects can be addressed without necessarily rejecting the entire development plan. For example, I know there is concern by winemakers in the southern suburbs about screening any future development from the Victor Harbor Road, but I believe that that can be achieved without necessarily stopping any development on that particular area. If I do take over the development plan—because the council has obviously washed its hands of it—I can assure the council that, if that is the case, I will be looking at all aspects of it, ensuring that any development plan takes into account those reasonable concerns that may have been raised in relation to proposals.

The honourable member raised a number of other questions in relation to the Willunga Basin. Again, I make the point that the Seaford Heights development has been earmarked for residential development for at least two decades. This government is serious about protecting the Willunga Basin. Indeed, I have already written to the council putting a proposal, and I have had lengthy discussions with the local member (Leon Bignell) in relation to what we can do to prevent any further subdivision outside the urban growth boundary within the Willunga Basin.

Earlier this week, I received a response from the council in relation to that matter. I will be making some further announcements shortly as to how we intend to proceed in terms of protecting the Willunga Basin. We are serious about doing it; however, we will not be doing it with the honourable member's bill, because that would mean setting up a huge committee involving dozens of people. As I read it, it would require anyone who wants even to put a shed on a property in the urban areas in the Willunga Basin to obtain approval. What is important is that we have stronger development controls. Again, I have discussed this matter with the local member, Mr Bignell, and I know that he has also looked at what is done interstate and overseas.

The most important measure one can take—and this already exists to some extent in the Barossa Valley—is to put restrictions on subdivision and also building on subdivisions within those high-value primary industry zones. So, the government already has measures underway in relation to that. As I said, I wrote to the council some weeks ago and have just recently received a response. I will take that up and make further statements shortly.

I can assure the honourable member who asked the question that this government and the local member, Mr Bignell, are very serious indeed about protecting the Willunga Basin. In relation to Seaford Heights, as I said, that has been earmarked for urban growth for many years, so I think it is inevitable that growth will appear there. However, in relation to that, we will be making sure that any development plan that is approved for the Seaford Heights area does not have any unnecessary or untoward impact on the McLaren Vale wine district.

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