Filed under: 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Barossa, Development, Environment, Gawler, Mt Barker, Paul Holloway, South Australia, Sustainability | Tags: 30 Year Plan, Gawler, In fill development, Mt Barker, Planning, sustanability, Urban Sprawl
A strong and vocal crowd greeted the Planning Minister Mr Paul Holloway at a protest rally against urban sprawl and the draft 30 year plan at Mt Barker on the 8th of November.
The Minister addressed the meeting with the take home message that the 30 year plan was designed to concentrate urban growth in designated areas. He also said the plan was designed to stop unregulated sprawl and ultimately protect agricultural land.
In response, the people of Mt Barker voiced their concerns about the rapid increase in population in the region. In particular about the loss of valuable agricultural land to housing, damage to the environment, the supply of water and power and the lack of general infrastructure.
A number of other speakers also voiced similar concerns. In particular the South Australian Farmers Federation are very concerned about the loss of prime agricultural land, the effects of climate change and shifting rainfall patterns and the threat to food security if agricultural land is lost.
Gawler resident Paul Koch also spoke at the meeting about the concerns the Gawler Community have over the 30 Year plan which mirrored most of the concerns identified by the Mt Barker community.
Mr Koch spoke on the 70:30 ratio for infill over green field developments. He highlighted the fact the development between Gawler and Roseworthy seems to be considered as infill. He felt that this was simply changing a definition to suit the planners.
“ it is difficult to agree that development between the two towns is considered as infill where presently there is only prime productive land. It seems an attempt to make it appear there is more infill than green field development. For the majority of people they would see this as greenfield development”
“ To most people in Gawler and surrounding region the 30 year plan is a recipe for urban sprawl with excessive population growth. There does not seem too much appetite from developers to take on serious infill projects – they seem to prefer the easy option of sprawling into agricultural land’
Mr Koch also said that it is important that the different residents groups work together as the issues are exactly the same. By working together they collectively have a stronger voice when talking to the Government.
The rally helped to highlight the growing concerns about the 30 year plan and its net result of moving development to the fringes of the city and the detrimental effects this will have on existing communities.
Filed under: 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Barossa, Biodiversity, Concordia, Development, Environment, Gawler, Habitat, Paul Holloway, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Pacific, Urban Sprawl, ugb | Tags: Barossa Regional Land-Use Study, Concordia, Development, Environmental Impacts, farming land protection, rural land protection, SA Carbon Neutral Pretenders, Uban Pacific
Why would the government choose to house 15,000 people in Concordia when one of its own studies as far back as 1997 in this
Rural land assessment 1997 concluded that most of Concordia had ‘class 1′ ‘high productive potential’ ‘requiring only simple management practices to maintain productivity’. Here’s something that is sustainable without having to try!
Filed under: 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Barossa, Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Paul Holloway, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Sprawl | Tags: 30 Year Plan, 30 Year Plan Greater Adelaide, Gawler, Planning, Public Submissions, Transparency in Government and Development Decisions
Apparently the State Government is not planning to publish submissions on the 30 Year Plan. So in the interests of public debate and transparency blogawler has approached people who we know have made submissions.
Please find attached a copy of the submissions of Sue Coldbeck and A Shackley and the views of Graham Brookman.
We hope to add to the submissions as we collect them. Mark Parnell MLC has also made some observations about the population projections in the 30 year plan and conflicts of interest see http://markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=798
More submissions: Paul Koch for the Gawler Urban Growth Boundary Forum Committee.
Helen Wilmore for the Cheek Avenue Area Residents Group
The Gawler Environment and Heritage Association has also provided their submission.
Filed under: Barossa, Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability | Tags: 30 Year Plan. Sustainability, Food security, Gawler, Population Growth
Planning a disaster for Gawler and the region. (click here for copies of recent submissions to the Minister)
The State Government has recently released a draft 30 year plan looking at priority areas for urban development. The aim is to provide a Plan for future development driven by a proposed big increase in population. It would allow government departments to put in place the forward thinking required to provide the services and infrastructure needed for a larger population.
Forward planning is supported and parts of the plan for redevelopment of inner suburbs around public transport corridors are supported. But for people living in Gawler and surrounds the Plan poses some very serious threats. The very title “The Adelaide we all want” says a lot.
Listed below are some important issues to consider about the Plan.
- Population increase for Gawler, Barossa, Light and Mallala from 60,000 to 200,000.
- Bureau of Statistics predicts a much lower population increase figure for South Australia than that in the 30 Year Plan. This lower increase in population could be easily accommodated in the existing urban footprint without moving into greenfield sites
- Prime agriculture land will be covered in houses.
- These areas will still have massive reliance on motor vehicles. Developments on the urban fringe may leave people ‘stranded’ in communities by high petrol costs
- There will need to be a major eastern bypass of Gawler to cost perhaps 500 million dollars. It would be devastating for people living on the proposed route.
- Instead of a vague computer generated coloured plan there should be a real structure plan that identifies the infrastructure needs, water, services etc needed. This allows everyone in the community including developers to know what might be required, and the cost.
- The increase in population will seriously threaten the existing heritage and character of Gawler. The suggestion of a possible Transport Oriented Development in “Gawler Central” is breathtaking – high rise central!
- The power of local councils to make decisions about planning will be removed or eroded.
Developers are already leap frogging ahead of the planning and approval process by offering commitments to local land owners to purchase their land. This type of speculation puts pressure on the process with, in many cases, developers over bidding for the land and then working to minimise the amount of money they will commit to infrastructure. The same scenario currently being played out in the Gawler East development with the developer committing to very little. The expectation from developers is that the community will ultimately fund the infrastructure to ensure their profits.
So it is important that you look at the plan as it will directly affect you and your family. Attached is a form letter you can use to express your concerns. You can either fill out the form letter and send it off or write your own submission. It is important though, that you attach the cover letter.
Your submission can be either be posted, or dropped off at the Gawler Bookshop, 7 Main North Road Willaston or Gawler Dry Cleaners 137 Murray Street Gawler (no later than 29 September). They will be collected and bulk mailed. You need to fill out main details on cover sheet plus say if your submission is confidential or not.
Submissions must be in Adelaide by the 30th of September.
If you need any further information you can contact, Helen Wilmore 85 223 019, Gawler East,Shirley Humphrey 85 223 694 Kalbeeba, Craig Pengelley 85 234 687 Evanston Park,Scott and Diane Fraser, 85 233 220 Gawler East, Irene Hartwich 85 226 339 Evanston Park, Paul Koch 85 232 859 Gawler East.
Click here to open up form submission you can use.
Filed under: Barossa, Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Habitat, Planning, Urban Sprawl | Tags: DPA Hearing, Gawler East, Water
Last Thursday, the 30th of July, saw the Development Policy Advisory Committee on the Gawler East DPA hold a public hearing. To their credit they allowed everyone who nominated in their written submission that they wanted to speak, the opportunity to make a presentation. Although the hearing was scheduled to run for two hours, it stretched on for five and a half hours. At the end of the evening everyone was satisfied they had had the opportunity to put their concerns directly to the committee.
It is hoped now that the Committee will take on boad the strong arguements that were presented, and that they will be listened to, especially by the Minister who will make the final decision .
There were over fifty presentations on the evening. One that seemed to resonate with the committee was from Mr Paul Koch. Below is the written version of that presentation.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Response to Committee by Mr Paul Koch.
I wish to talk about water and native vegetation as it relates to the DPA . These are two areas I have a professional interest in. I have almost 30 years of study and experience in the Horticultural industry.
Water.
The DPA indicated that there is only potable water available for 600 new homes (p49)
To provide water for the other proposed homes there must be the reuse of effluent water to provide for non-potable activities ie watering outdoor landscapes etc.
Although the DPA talks about mixing storm water for increasing the volume of water it misses the point that effluent water must be mixed with fresh water to dilute salts in the water.
Using reclaimed effluent water will contain salts, in particular sodium. (p 265 Growing Media) It can cause the soil to go sodic (as sodium ions replace other ions). Sodic soils tend to waterlog, are either slippery or sticky or like concrete. They erode easy and are hard to manage. (p 48 Growing Media)
Using straight effluent water would destroy the structure and fertility (physical, chemical biological ) of the soil
There is a need to mix effluent water with fresh water. This dilutes the salts so it can be used safely
Source of fresh water.
The site is not suitable for a Aquifer Recovery System (DPA p47). It must be put on anther site if that is to be the solution. This will need to be west of Main North Road.
There has been no identification of a site were ASR can and will occur, just vague references to ongoing investigations etc.
On DPA page 47 there is a reference to using wetland basins as a possible solution to providing fresh water. This statement does not take into consideration the effects of evaporation on water surfaces. In particular evaporation rates are very high in the summer months, for example mean daily pan evaporation rates are : evaporation rates in November 6.6mm , December 7.8mm, January 8.8, February 8.2mm and March 8.2mm ( Climatology Summary for Roseworthy Agriculture College)
This is a high evaporation rate (about 1.2 metres over 5 months) and would quickly evaporate off a free standing source of water.
At the time when you need a large supply of fresh water, say from a retention dam, it’s not available.
To date there has been no solutions to the source of fresh water.
The DPA seem to want to gloss over this issue – apparently a solution will just appear when there has already been over two years of investigations.
P 50 of the DPA states that the Existing Gawler Sewer system is currently operating at or above capacity. A Waste Water Treatment Plant at Gawler is seen as a way of taking the pressure capacity.
This seems like a simple solution to providing more water and reducing the pressure on the existing sewer system
This would divert water that would normally be treated. Where? Bolivar
A problem with this solution is that in winter there will less demand for the effluent water. There is no need to add extra water to already saturated soils.
This would mean instead of diverting waste water it would be adding to the demand on the existing treatment plant. Will this just over stretch the existing sewerage treatment plant.
The DPA gives a ranges of possibilities that may be suitable to solve the problem of providing water to the development.
Many of the solutions have not be fully investigated or have qualifications such a ‘possible’ or ‘may’.
The DPA should not be approved until the different options of obtaining fresh water to mix with mined sewer water are proven to be feasible and workable.
Hydrology of the site.
There has been not been a full hydrological study of the site. There is a section covering water movement across the site, but no details about water movement through the soil.
We do not know how water moves through the soil to feed springs and waterholes in the South Para for example.Will putting hard paving over the site reduce the amount of water naturally moving down into the local water tables ? Are we putting valuable ecological sites on the South Para at threat ? Where does the water that moves into the soil end up in a water table ?
What will be the effect on the bore fields of Bibaringa? People in this area rely on ground water for a range of activities. Are we putting these people’s supply at risk?
There have been no studies to understand this and other long term effects.
The effects of reclaimed effluent water on the site.
There have been no studies to determine how the soil on the site will react to water high in salts.
There needs to be an investigation of how the actual soil on the site will respond to reclaimed effluent water. It is a red brown earth, has a high percentage of clay, slippery when wet, cracking when dry. Detailed investigations need to be carried out on its suitability.
It is not a matter of just simply saying we have a source of water, so we can use it. Is the source of water compatible with the soil type?
As you use water for irrigation, the water pushes salts beyond the root zones. The salt accumulates at the edge of the wetting pattern. In fact you need higher water use than you would normally recommend to deal with the salt load.
You require winter rains to flush out salts. This can be a problem if the soils have gone sodic as the structure has been damaged.
Will using reclaimed effluent water adversely affect the fertility of the soil on this site?
DPA Attachment D. Objective 11- Protect the physical, chemical and biological quality of the soil.
Will the effluent salt eventually simply move into the existing water table and add to the existing salts in the system?
Is the bore field of Bibaringa at threat?
Will the salts move into the South Para and then eventually into the Gawler River affecting the Adelaide plains bore fields and horticultural production?
Without a detailed understanding of the hydrology of the site there is no way we can accurately predict what the outcomes will be.
The DPA should be halted until a detailed understanding of the hydrology of the site is understood and appreciated. We do not want to be creating an environmental disaster.
Native vegetation.
Natural resources Objective 1. Retention, protection and restoration of the natural resources and environment.
The DPA as written, would make it impossible to achieve this objective.
The DPA is looking to have very small allotments, down to 200 square metres or less with very small personal open space.
The offset is providing open space.
The area has previously been used for agriculture. There is some remaining native vegetation.
Page 43 figure 19 highlights areas of biological significance.
From the reading of the DPA it seems that these sites will not be protected but used as part of open space. Areas of biological significance must be protected ie not used for passive or active recreation.
Even simply walking on a site can damage fragile plants, compact the soil etc. The only real way of enhancing native vegetation, especially grasslands is to have a conservation zone around them and control weeds etc. By doing this the grassland will regenerate and be enhanced.
My fear is that land that cannot be developed and has remnant vegetation on it will be designated as open space. With the large number of people, the pressure will be too great and the vegetation will simply be lost.
By using native vegetation as open space, this object of enhancing native vegetation is not achievable.
People should be aware that to recreate a piece of native vegetation with the suite of plants and animals that occur naturally, can take a minimum of 100 years to achieve, if ever!
The DPA should exclude all identified native vegetation as open space. It would need to be placed in a ‘conservation’ zone. A buffer zone should then be established to limit the ‘edge effect’ on it and then open space should begin.
This would be a way of achieving the stated objective.
The DPA should not be approved until there is strong protection (conservation zone) put in place for the native vegetation on the site.
Summary.
Overall I found the DPA to be written with a bias towards a developer. Serious issues were simply brushed aside with the vague impression that a solution will be found and things roll along.
I believe that solution for these issues should have been found well before the DPA had even been written.
We are required to have a leap of faith that the problems we have all identified will simply evaporate and there will be no negative outcomes.
People are not against development, they are against development that is in the wrong place, too big (with all the consequences) and not thought out.
This DPA should not be approved.
Paul Koch 30 July 2009.
Filed under: Barossa, Development, Environment, Gawler, Paul Holloway, Planning, Urban Growth Boundary | Tags: Delfin Lend Lease, DPA, Gawler East Development, Planning SA
Written submissions to the Gawler East DPA have closed with well over 320 people lodging submissions. Of those, over 40 people have asked to speak at the public meeting at the Gawler Arms on Thursday the 30th of July at 7.30pm.
The number of submission lodged indicates that the residents of Gawler feel very passionately about the issue and want their voices heard.
The submissions are on view at the Planning SA website at www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/GawlerEast-DPA.
In the majority of cases these submission show people are concerned whether the site is appropriate for a major development and the detrimental impact it would have directly on their quality of life and the town.
All residents are encouraged to attend the public meeting. Even if you have not put in a submission or indicated you want to talk, your presence will send a strong message to the Government on how the community feels about the proposal.
So if you have the chance, visit the Planning SA website and look at the submissions. It is a good chance to see the range of views before the public meeting.
Filed under: Barossa, Environment, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Sprawl, ugb | Tags: Delfin Lenad Lease, EIS, Gawler East
The Urban Growth Community Forum Committee has written to the Minister for Urban Development, Mr Holloway regarding the approval process for the Gawler East development site.
The committee is calling on the Minister to ensure the approval process is not rushed and to guarantee the finances of any infrastructure needs. In particular they are calling on the Minister to conduct an Environmental Impact Study of the development on the site as this would address many of the concerns expressed by the community.
The committee has voiced its concerns regarding the speed at which the proposal is being pushed. Given the timetable outlined by the developer it appears decisions will be made well before critical investigation have been completed and then assessed.
Also, given the current economic turmoil, the committee is requesting that all infrastructure requirements be costed and budgeted for before approval is given.
In particular, given the already over crowded roads, that any SE bypass be allocated funds well before any actual work on the site begins. This will ensure any bypass will be built and not lost in State Government cutbacks to balance stretched budgets.
The committee is very concerned about the approval process for the Gawler East site. It feels good process is being pushed to one side at grave cost to the residents of Gawler and surrounding areas.
Filed under: Barossa, Development, Environment, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Sprawl, ugb | Tags: Delfin Lend Lease, Gawler East
Delfin outlines its timetable for Gawler East Development.
The Urban Growth Community Forum Committee is very concerned about a number of planning and approval issues related to the Delfin Gawler East Development.
The Committee has identified a number of worrying issues in the Delfin produced newsletter entitled Gawler East Development Update, Spring 2008.
The timetable identified by Delfin for rezoning approval seems to be out of sequence with a number of major studies that are currently being undertaken. In the timetable provided, there is no mention of major studies including the effects of traffic issues in and around Gawler. It is being suggested that the proposed Development Plan changes will go on public display before these studies are available. “This is of major concern to people living in Gawler who already have to cope with increasingly clogged road systems and seem to be putting the cart before the horse” a committee spokesperson said.
The Update seems to imply that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the site has been signed between Delfin, Gawler Council and State Government. As we now know the State Government has not signed the agreement.
The Committee considers it is misleading to say that the MoU has been signed. The Committee would also like to know why the Minister has been unable to sign the MoU.
The Delfin Update also quotes statements implying that the area has already been rezoned or that rezoning is a mere formality. For people who are not following the detail of process this could be misleading.
The Committee feels that there is an attempt to heighten the expectation that the development will be approved and put pressure on Government to fast track the process.
The Committee calls on the Minister to make a public commitment to allow all investigations and studies to be completed before rezoning is proposed.. When completed these studies should be part of the community consultation process with enough time for all issues to addressed. The Committee notes the detailed Environmental Impact Study for the Buckland Park site and requests a similar process for Gawler East. In particular, to ensure that all infrastructure issues such as traffic, public transport, water and sewerage are dealt with along with other environmental issues such as genuinely understanding the hydrology of the site and considering the effects on ground fed springs in local rivers and the ramification to the current users of ground sourced water for human and stock needs.
Delfin is a large corporation with a very sophisticated media machine that is very effective in delivering their message. The Committee is calling on the Government to ensure that the community’s voice is also heard by listening to their concerns and with a commitment to not rush a decision that will have irreversible effects on the town of Gawler.
Filed under: Barossa, Environment, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Sprawl | Tags: Community consultation, Galwer East, Lend Lease, medium/high density housing, Planning, sustanability, 30 Year Plan, gawler
In the recent State Budget there was a focus on public transport, in particular expenditure on light rain / trams to Port Adelaide and West Lakes. This improvement of infrastructure opens the door to developing appropriate medium/ high-density housing around transport hubs.
This type of development close to the centre of Adelaide will bring work, study and entertainment etc to within 15 minutes of travel. A denser European style of housing is proposed. Hopefully this signals the end of the American style of urban sprawl, that relies on more and more motor vehicles to access work and services. In a world with ever increasing fuel prices that must be a good thing.
At a local level we need to continually question the long-term sustainability of developments such as Gawler East, especially now that the development has been announced.
Up till now there has been mostly closed door discussions with Delfin, State Government and Councils about this development. It is surely now time for open and genuine consultation and dialogue with the community.
It is important the community not be simply treated to a ‘glossy sales pitch’ regarding the supposed ‘benefits’ of the development. There needs to be substantive investigation into all environment, social, heritage and traffic management implication on and off the site. Important issues must not be simply brushed aside for expediency. The community needs real information and a real say without a timetable that precludes proper community discussion.
If a process is rushed, the outcomes in most cases are dire. Act in haste, repent at leisure is a saying which comes to mind.
Filed under: Barossa, Development, Environment, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Sprawl, ugb | Tags: Gawler East, Lend Lease, Planning, sustanability, 30 Year Plan, gawler, Traffic, Urban Sprawl
Increasingly the wider community is becoming attuned to rising fuel prices and the cost of running a car, in particular driving to work. More and more people are using trains, buses and trams to commute to work if possible.
With the cost of fuel rising, it is becoming evident that it is not viable to simply keep pushing population growth out onto the urban fringe and then force people to rely on cars to get to work.
We currently have proposals to push the urban boundary further from the metropolitan heart. When the cost of fuel edges towards $2 a litre what will be the financial impact on people in these new developments? A more enlightened and sustainable view is to develop appropriate housing close to employment and services.
At a local level, traffic in and around Gawler is a constant problem. Murray Street is almost at capacity and the Government is conducting a traffic survey and looking at the impacts of different developments on traffic flows and movements.
A proposed solution is to create bypasses to accommodate the new housing developments but this will not solve the problems caused when these new residents want to travel into Gawler to access shops and services. Gawler, with its current traffic problems, is already a commercial destination, and the new developments of Target and off Para Road will draw additional traffic into the town.
It is inevitable that doubling our population with new housing developments will add to our traffic problems in Gawler, not solve it.
Hopefully the Government will start to take a more long-term view of urban development taking into account social and environmental outcomes. To do this they need to consider local concerns and not simply adopt solutions that seemed suitable last century.
