HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHARACTER PRESERVATION (BAROSSA VALLEY) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of questions I would like to ask today, and have indicated to the minister that we intend to progress the bill in this next sitting week. First, last time I raised some questions in relation to the maps and the boundaries, in particular the industrial area around Vinpac. We have had no indication that the maps have been readjusted, we have had no communication from the minister's office, so I am not aware as to whether or not that has happened.

I would very much like that to be provided to both the opposition and the crossbenchers so that we know that the maps have been adjusted and have been double-checked to make sure that all of those industrial areas and little anomalies have been ironed out, because we all know that those maps will be lodged with the registry office and, if they are wrong, we will have to come back to parliament to lodge new maps, so we do want proof that they have been adjusted. That is the first question.

The second question troubled me a little. I met with a number of the stakeholders and in particular the stakeholders from the Barossa—Sam Holmes, Jan Angas and Linda Bowes—a couple of weeks ago. They had a new bill drafted and they were very confident that the minister would accept that new bill. I know I will get looks of astonishment from the other side of the chamber. It was still their view last Wednesday, when I spoke to Mr Holmes in person, that they were going to meet with the minister and they were confident he would accept a new bill.

I thought that was an optimistic claim but, nonetheless, I would also like some assurance from the minister's office that we are only dealing with the bill that is before us today and we will not see that one removed and one that they were very confident the minister would accept. It was a strange claim to me but, nonetheless, the people in the Barossa have been quite passionate advocates now for two years and I gave them the courtesy of saying, 'We won't progress the existing bill until I've got a guarantee from the minister that we won't be having another bill.'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I realise that, during the second reading debate, Mr Ridgway requested further information about the number of industrial properties that fall outside the township areas. In particular, the Hon. Mr Ridgway queried the non-inclusion of two properties owned by Tarac Pty Ltd and land owned by North Para Environment Control Pty Ltd, which is operated, I think, as a wastewater treatment plant. The Hon. Mr Ridgway expressed concern about apparent industrial areas not included in the townships.

I would like to point out that, as a starting point, a variety of industrial uses are ancillary to primary production and are therefore considered appropriate for the rural areas of the Barossa Valley district. The bill has nothing direct to say on these matters and leaves them to the development plan. The NPEC wastewater treatment plant, which is located in the primary production zone, is a good example of this. The government therefore does not consider that this area should be included in the township boundaries.

Adjacent to this property are two property holdings owned by Tarac on, I think, Samuel Road. One of these is in the township boundary and one is not. The simple reason for this is that one is zoned for industrial use and one is zoned for primary production. While the allotment zoned for primary production may have been acquired in the hope that it might be rezoned at some stage, there is no right to that and, given the current zoning and the fact that the land is underdeveloped, it is appropriate that the land not be included in the township.

The other allotment owned by Tarac presents a slightly different issue. I am advised that the land in question is contiguous to the Beckwith Park industrial estate at Nuri and is partially developed with car parking associated with the nearby facilities. This land falls within the council's industry zone and I am advised that this occurred as a result of a general development plan amendment undertaken during 2011 to convert the Barossa Council's development plan to standardised zoning format.

This process merged two previous zones into one and, as a consequence of occurring contemporaneously with the mapping for this bill, the slight zoning change was not captured at that time, and so the township boundary reflected in this bill is incorrect. The government has moved to correct it, it having been drawn to our attention.

Given this anomaly, in response to the Hon. David Ridgway's suggestion in the second reading debate, the department has reviewed the township boundaries and picked up an additional anomaly resulting from this development plan amendment at Williamstown, and so this has also been corrected. Neither of these boundary changes alter the intent of the bill to define township boundaries based on existing zoning boundaries. Both changes represent anomalies only that have been now corrected, and we thank the Hon. David Ridgway for drawing that to our attention.

In relation to the issue about whether there is going to be a new bill, I can assure the honourable member that no new bill is anticipated. The government knows nothing about the proposal that the Hon. David Ridgway has talked about today. The only amendments that we have at present are those that are on file.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Did you address the Vinpac issue which I also raised in the second reading speech? Vinpac is a wine packing facility that is on land in an industrial zone (Stockwell Road in Angaston). Again, it is a property of quite some magnitude and surrounded by vacant land that is zoned industrial, but it is still in the rural zone. The owners were just interested to know whether that would be identified as an industrial park, rather than rural.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the issue relating to Vinpac is a matter for the development plan. Industrial uses related to rural uses are already permitted, and the bill is silent on this and leaves it to the development plan.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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