Election issues

 Community Forum looking for answers.

A major issue that will affect the way electors in Light and Schubert cast their vote will be urban development, particularly around Gawler.

This has been a major  issue over the last two years. First when the urban growth boundary was extended and the development in Gawler East was proposed. This proposal caused vocal responses from the community with the majority raising serious concerns about the appropriateness of that expansion.

More recently the State Government has released its 30 Year Plan. This plan was a initiated in part because of government plans for rapidly  rising population in South Australia. In particular the 30 Year Plan projects a massive increase in population within the Concordia/Gawler East area and north of Gawler including around Roseworthy.  Many in the community have concerns that this massive population increase will have a detrimental effect on the region and is not sustainable.

To help electors make a distinction between the different parties’s views on this issues the Gawler Urban Growth Community Forum set out to provide an opportunity for parties to air their views on development in and around Gawler.

The candidate from each main party in Light and Legislative Council candidates who have shown interest in the issues were sent a list of questions and asked to respond. The group has received two  detailed responses to date, from the Australian Democrats and the Greens and a shorter  response from the Liberal Candidate.

It is hoped that the other Candidates will respond before the poll, so electors have a clear view of each party’s position on the issues.  Responses will be put on the web site as soon as they are received.

The response from the candidates are listed below so people can make their own minds up about the different candidates view on the issues.

We have also included the original letter sent  to each candidate requesting a response so you can follow the process we went through. 

The Gawler Urban Growth Community Forum feels that issues around development will impact directly on the lives of current and future residents

 Letter to Candidates

Dear Candidate,

In lieu of a public forum to discuss the issues surrounding urban growth as it relates  Gawler, our committee has decided to ask a series of questions each candidate can respond to.

As soon as responses are received we will post the entire questions and answers on our web site  “blogawler.wordpress.com”, and advertise how they can be viewed. This will give you the opportunity to publicise your position and policies, and allow the public to compare each candidate’s position.

The responses will be available to the local media.  We would provide a short commentary on the issues raised.

 We feel this is a very important opportunity for candidates to connect with voters on this issue.

The question have been developed after consultation with the community over the last two years.  In our experience they encapsulate the issues most commonly raised about urban growth in this region.

Thank you for your participation.  We would appreciate your responses by Wednesday the 3^rd of March 2010.

Yours truly,

 Paul Koch

Spokesperson

Gawler Urban Growth Community Forum.

26^th February 2010.

Response from Penny Johnston Greens Candidate for Light

The 30 Year Plan.

1The State Government  has proposed population expansion in Barossa Region of 110,000 (from about 60,000 to 170,000) over the 30 years.  What is your position on what level of population expansion of the region is appropriate. 

 Before we even put a figure on any population increase we need to have a detailed assessment of existing land use. Where is the high value primary production land, and  where are the areas of environmental significance?    What is the carrying capacity of existing roads?  What sort of public transport is already available?  What are the actual benefits of an increased population and the real costs of building on the fringe? Where will people work? Such an examination may lead us to conclude that ‘no expansion’ is the sustainable option.

2. The Plan says that there should be green buffers between Gawler and other existing and proposed new urban areas.  Green buffers are shown between Gawler and Munno Para and Gawler and proposed Concordia but not between Gawler and proposed Roseworthy.  What width of and type of green buffers do you see as appropriate between Gawler and other urban areas.  How would you ensure green buffers are retained.

If green buffers are to have more than simple aesthetic appeal their size and width needs to be based on an examination of their purpose.  If they are wildlife corridors we need advice on how they might be designed, the species needed and the width.  If they are to reduce noise then that would have a different impact on design.  If they are for recreational purposes there are different considerations again.  Can recreational use and wildlife corridor use co-exist?  Other than to put some thin green lines on their map the government does not appear to have done any of this type of important thinking or analysis.

3. State Govt Plan says that there should be protection of productive primary production land.  What policies do you support for such protection and where do you believe such protection is warranted around Gawler.

The first step in protecting productive land is for the government to stop moving the urban growth boundary.  What’s needed is a different philosophy that doesn’t assume that rezoning rural land for housing is an improvement on existing land use.  Both Concordia and Roseworthy have high value land for primary production.  Crops can be grown there with minimal inputs and on natural rainfall.  That is the sort of capability we need to retain in order to be climate-change resilient.

4 . Any other issues in 30 the Year Plan affecting Gawler and surrounding areas which you strongly support or strongly disagree with.

I have written a detailed letter to local papers regarding my reaction to the 30 year plan it reads:

The Government’s 30 year plan, as it relates to Gawler, Concordia and Roseworthy is misleading and internally inconsistent.

While the overall plan promises to create 1 job for every 1.99 new people who arrive across greater Adelaide, this is not true for the Barossa region where there are only 38,500 new jobs targeted for a population increase of 110,000 – that’s only 1 new job for every 2.86 new people.  The figure of 38,500 new jobs was also the figure in the draft plan before population increases in the Barossa were revised down and the numbers transferred to Playford/ Elizabeth.  The government needs to provide information on why the jobs figure has not gone down .

All this is likely to mean that thousands of new residents will be unable to find employment in the region.  Mike Rann’s promise in the plan that, “we will reduce over-reliance on motor vehicles” is not likely to be met by the strategy of increasing the population in the Barossa region.

The Plan’s growth map for the Barossa contains specific areas in Roseworthy marked as having ‘high environmental significance,’ however, the government has failed to include any acknowledgment of the many kilometres of roadside and rail corridor vegetation in the area- both of which are more diverse in terms of the number of species than the sites identified on the map. 

The government’s map also places a “Roseworthy South”  railway station in the middle of conservation-rated Eucalyptus largiflorens woodland and Themeda triandra grasslands.  This would indicate that specific principles in the 30 year plan which require biodiversity be considered in land-use decisions and the unambiguous mapping of key environmental assets have not been adhered to.

Although potential areas of” primary production significance” have been marked on parts of the plan, the Plan’s Barossa map is misleading because it fails to show that the future urban growth areas of Roseworthy and Concordia are themselves  areas of “primary production significance”.  The government must acknowledge that highly productive primary production land will be consumed by houses and a debate needs to take place on whether or not that is desirable.

Open space between northern Gawler and Roseworthy residential areas (shown in the draft 30 year plan at a rather measly 800 metres wide) has disappeared in the final version with no explanation.  Apparently the green buffer promised for Gawler on page 4 of the plan has now been reduced to the road verge.   With no open space between Gawler/ Hewett and the Roseworthy development, and minimal open space between Gawler and Concordia,  retention of what the Minister calls “the ambience and charm of rural centres” seems unlikely in a combined Gawler/Roseworthy city of 100,000+ people.

 Gawler East

5. Do you support urban development in the following areas as proposed in the Gawler East and Environs Ministerial DPA and if so about how much development in terms of population and commercial development

-          Gawler East between Calton Road and the South Para.

     No

    – the Eckerman Ave area between the South Para and One Tree Hill Road

    No 

-          south of One Tree Hill Road to Potts Road

No

6. What width of corridor along One Tree Hill Road (Scenic route) on either side do you think should as open space/remain free of urban development.

This whole area is not appropriate for development

7.  The current DPA proposes a road from Calton Road across the South Para at the east end of Dead Man’s Pass and then crossing One Tree Hill Road to Potts Road and then along Bentley Road  to Tiver Road and to Main North Road.  What is your view about the appropriate route for a southern connecting road from the proposed Gawler East area across the South Para and to Main North Road, assuming there is to be one.

This whole problem has been caused by lack of planning and allowing a Ministerial Development Plans Amendment to be progressed by the developer and their advisors in an area that is totally inappropriate.  The Government should scrap the Gawler East DPA and admit it was a poor idea with even poorer execution.

8. What do you support in terms of protection of the South Para and other river/creeklines in the Gawler East DPA area.  How would you achieve this.

The precautionary principle requires that development in Gawler East not proceed because we don’t know what effect it will have on groundwater that moves off down and off the site and feeds permanent pools in the South Para.  If you don’t understand the system/ haven’t done enough investigations, it shouldn’t be messed with.

9. Who do you support being required to fund the cost of infrastructure and services required outside of development land at Gawler East if the proposed DPA goes ahead

    - Gawler Council

    - State Government

    - developers

    - other (please specify)

You can nominate more than one and say how the cost would be shared between them if more than one.

 I don’t believe the development is sustainable, so it shouldn’t go ahead.

10. What is your view on using the Para Woodland  as the location of  the water treatment plant, storage dams, power generation and recreation ovals to service any proposed Gawler East Development.

Use of the Para Woodlands for anything other than conservation purposes is an outrageous suggestion.

11. Any other issues in the Gawler East DPA affecting Gawler and surrounding areas which you strongly support or strongly disagree with.

Refer comments on 30 year plan

Gawler and adjacent areas generally

12. What matters do you see as important in maintaining the character of Gawler and adjacent areas.  How would you propose to achieve this?

Sticking to the Townships policy in the Planning Strategy – which requires protection of the small scale and character of townships would help.  Since the government has subverted proper planning policies and processes perhaps the courts are the only remaining option. 

 

 

AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS’ RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM GAWLER URBAN GROWTH COMMUNITY FORM

3^rd March, 2010

The 30 Year Plan

1. The State Government  has proposed population expansion in Barossa Region of 110,000 (from about 60,000 to 170,000) over the 30 years.  What is your position on what level of population expansion of the region is appropriate. 

The Australian Democrats are unhappy with the government’s “future inevitable” approach to population growth in this state.  South Australia is hard-pressed to find the water and other infrastructure we need to support our current population – consciously growing the population is a form of madness.

In the case of the Barossa region, housing pressures will inevitably see a repeat of the 1982 decision to carve up the Grange Vineyards for housing.  More population will see more incursions into productive agricultural land. Ideally, we should be stabilising our population now, in the Barossa Region and for most of the rest of South Australia.

We are concerned that figures are being fudged by the government which has a hidden agenda for a much higher population than they have stated.

2. The Plan says that there should be green buffers between Gawler and other existing and proposed new urban areas.  Green buffers are shown between Gawler and Munno Para and Gawler and proposed Concordia but not between Gawler and proposed Roseworthy.  What width of and type of green buffers do you see as appropriate between Gawler and other urban areas.  How would you ensure green buffers are retained.

If the government is determined to go ahead with its plans, then buffers are vital, and there definitely must be one between Gawler and Roseworthy – it is inexplicable that the state government has left this out.

The type of buffer should reflect what the public is looking for, but the Australian Democrats would suggest a replanting of the indigenous native vegetation would be appropriate and sustainable.  “The Paddocks” at Para Hills, which was degraded farmland up until the early 60s, is a good model, and like “The Paddocks” there should be provision for stormwater retention, and open space for passive recreation.  The width of such a buffer, with native vegetation, open space, and storm water retention basins would obviously require more than a thin strip of land.  A minimum 500m width would be a start only, but we would anticipate that most of the buffer would be wider than this – probably up to 2km in places.

Green buffers are a good idea in theory, but with the population growth envisaged by this government it is hardly likely that government would restrain the development lobby when it ultimately decides it wants a piece of that action. 

Governments have shown (for example, the St Clair Recreation Reserve debacle) that they do not respect open space, nor do they appear to understand the emotional and spiritual attachment that residents have to that space.   The only way there is any chance of protecting such buffers is through legislation.  This has been done to a limited extent with the Adelaide Parklands Act, and there is no doubt we will need similar legislative protection for a second generation of parklands, which such a buffer should become.

3. State Govt Plan says that there should be protection of productive primary production land.  What policies do you support for such protection and where do you believe such protection is warranted around Gawler.

With an increased population and the anticipated impacts of climate change, there will be a greater need to produce food for that same population, and we will need all the productive land we can get.  Yet the government’s plan will ensure some of the best land for primary production will be taken over by houses.  But we cannot eat houses!

The land around Roseworthy is highly productive agricultural land: it is no accident that the Roseworthy Agricultural College was established there for intending farmers to work and study in a real agriculture zone. To the west around Virginia we have a significant horticultural industry. And to the east we have premium vitculture in the Barossa.

The Government does not seem to understand that encroachment of the urban sprawl on land which is so valuable for primary production will place pressure on that sector.  The valuation of the land itself may well cause rates rises that could force farmers to sell up, or alternatively, complaints from the residents about trucks, noise, dust, spraydrift and smells may bring about the same outcome.  At the very minimum there will need to be buffer zones between primary production and housing.

4 . Any other issues in 30 the Year Plan affecting Gawler and surrounding areas which you strongly support or strongly disagree with.

 The 30 Year Plan has made the whole concept of an urban growth boundary a joke.

 The government is failing to recognise the impending impact of ‘peak oil’ which will see the emergence of fuel poverty.  Those who cannot afford to live in the metropolitan area will choose to live on the physical margins, but will have to be totally car dependent.  As the price for fuel continues to escalate, these residents will be effectively isolated, with the potential for the creation of social ghettos.

Gawler East

5. Do you support urban development in the following areas as proposed in the Gawler East and Environs Ministerial DPA and if so about how much development in terms of population and commercial development 

    – Gawler East between Calton Road and the South Para 

    – the Eckerman Ave area between the South Para and One Tree Hill Road 

    - south of One Tree Hill Road to Potts Road

With the population envisaged for the area it is clear that road traffic will become a major problem, and the Plan does not appear to properly address this.  Without proper planning for road and transport infrastructure, it is entirely inappropriate for such development to occur.  There is also a risk of flooding because of the increased runoff created by the hard surfaces of new housing development.

6. What width of corridor along One Tree Hill Road (Scenic route) on either side do you think should as open space/remain free of urban development

The land surrounding this winding road is picturesque rural land with views to the coast and it should be retained as such.  It would be a travesty to see it sub-divided.

7.  The current DPA proposes a road from Calton Road across the South Para at the east end of Dead Man’s Pass and then crossing One Tree Hill Road to Potts Road and then along Bentley Road  to Tiver Road and to Main North Road.  What is your view about the appropriate route for a southern connecting road from the proposed Gawler East area across the South Para and to Main North Road, assuming there is to be one.

 It is quite beyond comprehension that this is being proposed, given that the roads are already used to capacity.

 8. What do you support in terms of protection of the South Para and other river/creeklines in the Gawler East DPA area.  How would you achieve this.

 This land is part of a watershed, and with all we know about a drying climate, we will need to conserve every last drop.  This land needs to be protected from development or any other activities that could potentially contaminate that water.  Additionally, where necessary, aquatic vegetation should be restored to the watercourses because of their capacity to clean the water.

9. Who do you support being required to fund the cost of infrastructure and services required outside of development land at Gawler East if the proposed DPA goes ahead  

    - Gawler Council 

    - State Government 

    - developers 

    - other (please specify) 

You can nominate more than one and say how the cost would be shared between them if more than one.

 Most of what is proposed is being done at the behest of the development lobby, and they should therefore be required to meet the upfront costs.  The developers are already speculating on land – they make the windfall profits and it is therefore inappropriate to be asking either the ratepayers or taxpayers to foot the bill.

10. What is your view on using the Para Woodland  as the location of  the water treatment plant, storage dams, power generation and recreation ovals to service any proposed Gawler East Development.

Such reserves are a vital part of open space and should not be used for industrial purposes, particularly as the Para Woodland is a sanctuary for wildlife.

11. Any other issues in the Gawler East DPA affecting Gawler and surrounding areas which you strongly support or strongly disagree with.

Just as we have concerns about the conflicts that will arise between urban dwellers and primary producers, we see the potential for conflicts between urban dwellers and industry as the urban sprawl moves closer, with a potential for health problems from industrial pollutants.  The Plan does not seem to recognise that this is likely to occur.

Gawler and adjacent areas generally

 12. What matters do you see as important in maintaining the character of Gawler and adjacent areas.  How would you propose to achieve this?

 Gawler still has many delightful buildings reflecting the area’s colonial heritage, but the urban pressures will put some of this at stake. It is likely that modern buildings will conflict with that heritage character in terms of both style and height, particularly with the pressure for increased urban density associated with TODs. 

 More of these buildings should be put on the Local Heritage List.  But recognising that this provides little protection (all that is required by the local council is to take that listing “into consideration” when deliberating on a development/demolition proposal) more buildings must be placed on the State Heritage Register.

 

Response from Cosie Costa Liberal for Light

Hello Paul 

In reference to your questions, I am well aware that during preliminary conversations, I committed to responding to a few questions (4 or 5 I believe was the suggestion). However, as a candidate, I am not in a position to be answering questions on various policy areas which require extensive knowledge of those topics, nor I am in a position to be making commitments on behalf of the Liberal Party – rather, I can provide my own personal views.

I have made these personal views on sustainable development issues quite clear to the public since the beginning of my candidacy.

If elected on March 20, I will be able to seek advice from people with expertise in various areas to address the concerns expressed strongly by many local residents.

I hope that you can understand my stance on these issues. I have spent a great deal of time over the past few months as the election draws closer, learning and understanding many issues within this electorate, and every single one is as important to the people involved as this issue is to you.

Again, as a candidate, I have limited resources and must rely heavily on volunteers for assistance. If I were to focus on just one concern or issue, then I believe that it would be unfair to the whole of the electorate.

I apologise if this response is unsatisfactory to you.

Yours sincerely

Cosie Costa

Liberal for Light