HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ST CLAIR DEVELOPMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of the Hon. D.W. Ridgway:

That this council condemns the Weatherill Labor government for its continual arrogance in pursuing the St Clair 'deal', including a land swap which will destroy one of the few remaining open spaces for locals, ignoring the overwhelming message from the Charles Sturt election result and labelling the latest DPA under the deceptive title of 'Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment'.

(Continued from 6 February 2013.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:30): I rise to put the government's response, and it will be no surprise that the government opposes this motion. Four points need to be addressed in responding to this motion: (1) the land swap; (2) the perceived reduction of open space in the St Clair area; (3) the perception that the government has ignored the views of the local community and the City of Charles Sturt; and (4) the view that the title of the development plan amendment is deceptive.

On the first issue of the land swap, in 2008, the City of Charles Sturt began discussing a possible land swap with Woodville Joint Venture Pty Ltd (Woodville JV). The swap involved the Land Management Corporation (now Renewal SA) acquiring a 4.7 hectare portion of the former Sheridan site from Woodville JV to be developed as a public reserve. Renewal SA then swapped this land for 4.7 hectares of council-owned St Clair reserve, with the intention of developing this site for mixed use, residential and open space. In December 2009, the City of Charles Sturt revoked the community land status of the affected portion of the St Clair reserve and the land was formally transferred in August 2010 to the ownership of Renewal SA.

On the second point, the perceived reduction of the open space in the St Clair area, the land swap did not reduce the amount of open space in the area as it resulted in 4.7 hectares of land being swapped for an area of exactly the same size. In fact, Renewal SA has now agreed to add a further 1.3 hectares from its 4.7 hectares, adjacent the Woodville Railway Station, to open space. The net result is that the open space in the affected area will increase from 4.7 hectares to six hectares, an additional 15.7 per cent more than is required by the Development Act 1993.

The third point is whether the government has ignored the views of the local community and the City of Charles Sturt. As the land swap was jointly instigated by the Charles Sturt council and Woodville JV, and the master plan was initiated by council in conjunction with Renewal SA, these bodies were responsible for ensuring the community was given a full briefing on both these issues and that their views were actively sought. Both the land swap and the development of the master plan involved thorough and extensive community engagement processes.

In seeking the community's views about the land swap, council conducted a six-week community engagement process involving letters sent to landowners and residents within 500 metres (which resulted in more than 1,500 responses), letters sent to external stakeholders and community groups (which resulted in responses from 16 groups), full-page adverts and public notices in local newspapers, a large sign on the St Clair reserve, displays at the civic centre and the Cheltenham Community Centre, and information on the council's website.

The master plan was also subject to a thorough community engagement process. Residents, traders, property owners, school members, local service providers, and community and sporting groups were given a variety of opportunities to attend workshops, meetings, on-site discussions, and a six-day intensive design workshop about the master plan. Finally, the draft master plan was put on display for a four-week period, commencing with an open day.

Representatives of the St Clair Reserve Ratepayers Association participated in this community engagement process. Whilst clearly stating their continued opposition to the land swap, in the event that the development did proceed the association developed an alternative plan which emulates the design principles of Christie Walk, a sustainable, medium to high density residential development in Sturt Street, Adelaide.

To implement some of the key recommendations of the Woodville Village master plan that relate to the Renewal SA proportion of the land, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure then prepared the Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment. The community consultation for this DPA was conducted over an extended 12-week period from 22 November 2012 to 14 February 2013, four weeks longer than the statutory requirement. More than 300 submissions were received and are being considered. Importantly, the City of Charles Sturt has indicated its general support for the Woodville Station DPA.

The fourth point was whether the title of the DPA was deceptive. No; the Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment is so named because it seeks to implement the recommendations of the Woodville Village master plan as they relate to land adjacent to the Woodville Railway Station rather than the balance of the land being subject to the master plan. As I understand it, this is the subject of a council-led DPA. On that basis, the government opposes this motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:37): Because I support the motion I will not delay its passage for long, but I would like to make a few very brief comments. Rather than rehashing the comments already made in this chamber by my colleagues the Hon. Mr Ridgway and the Hon. Mr Parnell, I will simply say that the removal of this land from the community is a travesty. It is wrong. Many of the points they have raised about lack of process, lack of transparency and the community dudded by a majority of the local council and the Labor government are completely accurate and, again, very wrong. For these reasons I support the motion and commend it the chamber.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:37): I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this important motion. I think what it does indicate is how out of touch the government is. I note the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' comments in relation to open space. Does he not recall (I spoke of it in my contribution) that a survey done by the LGA showed that in the City of Charles Sturt they are already significantly short of adequate open space? With the government's own population targets, they will be even further short of usable public space in all of the City of Charles Sturt. Of course, that includes the area around St Clair and the Woodville station.

Open space is an important part of our vibrant communities, an important part of liveable and walkable suburbs—all the things that the Labor government talks about at the moment. It says that this is an important part of it, yet it is quite happy for valuable open space to be lost. There are a number of areas, including old industrial land, in that particular council area that could be used for high-density housing.

The Liberal Party has always been supportive of greater density housing in the city but not at the expense of beautiful, open, public space. There are a number of industrial sites that could be rehabilitated, industries moved on, and we could actually have some high density housing near the railway lines, near public transport, without the loss of open space.

Just touching on the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' final point, he talked about the title of the DPA not being deceptive. It talks about the Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment, and now they are saying it is actually the land adjacent to it. If they were not wanting to be deceptive, why could it not have been called the Woodville Station (Adjacent Land) Development Plan Amendment? That is not in the title and it is clear they were trying to be deceptive.

Whether it is the council, local government, Renewal SA, or a combination of all of them, at the end of the day, this whole process has been poorly handled. The consultation, clearly, has not been adequate right from day one with the sale of Cheltenham and right the way through. I think, because these projects are all linked, from day one, the consultation and the information that has been shared out there has been appalling and, of course, now we see that significant parts of valuable open space will be lost to the western suburbs. I commend the motion to the chamber.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (12)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Franks, T.A. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. (teller)
Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G.
NOES (6)
Gago, G.E. Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A. (teller)
Maher, K.J. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

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