The recent approval of the Gawler East Developoment Plan Amendment and the rezoning of the land for urban development brings this unpopular development one step closer.

The Gawler Community can justifiably feel outraged and disappointed by the decision.

The community highlighted the deficiencies in the proposal through its submissions on the DPA. With the approval now given, very little of those concerns have been taken on board. There have been some amendments to the DPA but if you look closely there are very subtle changes that go further to benefit the developer.

 In November 2008  Delfin announced  that the development would be viewed as “world class”. The proposal has now been watered down to what has been described as “a typical development”.  Increasingly the development is being seen as a profit-driven exercise rather than providing enduring benefits for the town or a showcase of planning excellence.

 At a Community Cabinet Development Forum in 2009, the Minister gave a public undertaking that funding for all infrastructure between the different stakeholders would be addressed before the DPA was approved.  

http://www.tonypiccolo.org/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/enlightened_14%20FOURTHDRAFT.pdf

This has not happened, and has left the community in a very vulnerable position.

What adds insult to injury is that the Government is now insisting on finalising  an agreement on infrastructure funding within a matter of a few days.  We are told that one reason for this rush may be the need to satisfy Delfin’s contractual obligations. Such a reason, if true, should not be a legitimate reason to hurry an important and complex process. Surely the Council must be given sufficient time to adequately consider all the issues before any agreements can be made.

 The next step in the process is the consideration of the  Environment, Resources and Development Committee. It is important that the community consider the option of making a submission to this committee.

  It is hoped that the Government will listen to the concerns of the community and provide adequate time for all parties to reflect and respond in an informed and considered way. It is almost unprecedented that such a tight timeframe on agreeing to infrastructure  funding  has been applied. The community deserves better.

The first is the Council Supreme Court challenge to the Gawler Racecourse Development Plan Amendment ( DPA) and the second is the release of some details of transport infrastructure related tor the proposed Gawler East Development.

 The group, Gawler Urban Growth Community Forum,  fully supports the racecourse redevelopment being undertaken by the Gawler Jockey Club. It is a superb upgrade to their facilities and course and will provide a fantastic base for racing. It will also be a valuable asset for the community.

 The concern though, is the procedures around the DPA that has now allowed the rezoning of the land for retail development.

The group submitted a written response to the DPA, and it’s spokesperson, Mr Paul Koch  spoke at the public hearing.

“What concerned me the most was the way the DPA seemed skewed towards a particular outcome, that of gaining the greatest financial return to cover a loan made by the State government, over the needs and wishes of the community” said Mr Koch.

The Group supports the actions taken by the Gawler Council as they feel the concerns of the community were not properly taken into consideration.

 Last Wednesday’s Council meeting, 28^th July 2010,  saw the public release of some details of the transport infrastructure  needs for the proposed Gawler East Development.

 The Department of Transport Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) provided a map of the proposed roads as well as timed delivery of the infrastructure; in effect a staged building of roads and related infrastructure as the development progresses. Although requested, the actual figures and modelling used to come to solutions were not provided although it appears these may now be provided.

 Putting aside what many considered as unworkable traffic solutions, without supporting information it is clear that  councillors cannot  fulfil their duties to safeguard the interests of the community.

 It is interesting to note that the developer, Delfin Lend Lease, were part of the working group  developing the solution, we assume to represent their interests,  while the community, through it elected council members, were locked out.

 The community is well aware of the need to release the details behind reports that are provided. For example the Blandy report, commissioned by Delfin Lend Lease, predicted that Gawler would receive a great a financial benefit as a result of the development. After great resistance, the report was released.  The subsequent Morrison Lowe report commissioned by the Council predicted the Council could in fact be financially disadvantaged.

 Options to fund the Gawler East related traffic infrastructure development were proposed by Delfin Lend Lease. With an estimated cost of over $71 million, Delfin Lend Lease is proposing that they only fund about $17 million, which equates to only 24% of the total cost . They propose that Gawler Council funds $6.5 million, Barossa Council $0.75 million and State Government through ownership of land (Commissioner of Highways) and as the Department of Transport funds $44 million or 38% of  the total cost. Other future developers would be expected to pick up the other $3.5 million.

 There would be no need to undertake this major upgrade of roads, bridges etc if this development did not occur. Delfin Lend Lease will be the major beneficiary from the development , with an estimated very large profit. But they are proposing to pay less than 24 % of the total traffic costs and no mention of other costs for community services. This seems a very uneven balance.

 There also appears to be a complete reversal of an earlier commitment to finalise a Deed of Commitment (DoC) before the approval of the DPA. This would then lock all parties into the funding and timing of the delivery of infrastructure  before a final DPA determines what can and can’t be approved on the site.

 It would seem essential that the DoC  be finalised before the DPA is approved. By approving the DPA first the community loses all leverage to negotiate an equitable DoC.

Also on modelling, a question must be asked “How can we be sure the transport modelling is accurate when figures for impacts on Potts Road, for example, for the same development have varied from 10-12,000 cars per day to over 20,000?” Further Delfin Lend Lease is pushing for few restrictions on the  minimum size of blocks and height of buildings. This goes to the heart of the density of the development and number of residents and ultimately the number of vehicle movements. Are the developers trying to paint the best-case scenario to make the development more palatable?

 Mr Koch said, “ The State Government should  defer the approval  of the Gawler  DPA and sit down with the Gawler and Barossa councillors and work through all the issues. In particular the figures and modelling used to arrive at the final traffic solutions and all the components of a DoC (many issues other than traffic are involved). Without this the community is left in the dark with a likelihood of a greater financial commitment and disruption than they were lead to expect.”

 It is very interesting that the issue of sustainability is now becoming a mainstream issue.

Recently the Australian Conservation Foundation rated Adelaide very low on their index of sustainable cities in Australia. In part this rating was due to the city’s dependence on motor cars.

 The local member for Light  has voiced concerns about the sustainability of  large greenfield developments, for example around Roseworthy. Without the provision of community services these communities will be disadvantaged.

 Now with a change of leadership at the Federal government level, the focus has shifted away from the ‘Big Australia’ to  sustainable population growth; a population increase that is matched to the country’s environmental capacity to manage a growing population. This includes the loss of productive land, food security and long term water supplies. Also the pressure put on housing affordability, traffic congestion, reduced quality of life, increased carbon emissions and the threat to the natural environment and endangered species.

All of these issues are front and centre when we consider the proposed Gawler East development and the potential development around Roseworthy and Concordia. In many people’s eyes they are not sustainable.

 It appears at the moment that rapid population growth and subsequent urban sprawl is  being championed by big business and  business lobby groups,  who see continued rapid growth at any cost, as the only way forward. In the end, though, their goal appears to be more about making  big profits quickly.

 In light of the shift  to looking at a sustainable population, it is time to put these developments  on hold and look closely at their  environmental sustainability.  

Without truly sustainable development everyone will be short-changed.

 Since the State Election there has been very few public statements made about the Gawler East Development.  The public is becoming increasing suspicious about possible discussions and developments taking place behind closed doors.  A project of this size does not simply evaporate.

 After the recent election there was a commitment from the new Government to be open, and consult with communities. The process around this proposal provides the perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate this new found desire for openness.

There has been no recent word about the DPA, about potential infrastructure needs or about possible routes for a southeast bypasses. It is important that the community be aware and involved in any of these discussions. 

 What has been heartening is the Ministers’ previous commitments to ensure agreements about all related infrastructure and major community services is in place before any rezoning takes place.

We sincerely hope this is carried through.  We have heard talk of ‘staged’ development which would appear aimed at allowing major development before infrastructure such as a southeast bypass, solution to stromwater and  waste water treatment etc are in place.  Such proposals have the potential to be devastating to the Gawler area and could for example completely choke an already clogged traffic network with consequences for many areas currently not affected by through traffic.

The community needs to be part of the Government’s community consultation otherwise the community is likely to lose out to other better funded interested parties.

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

Urban development in the Gawler, Barossa and Light Area is emerging as a key election issue.  Andrew Spence in NorthPoint in the Messenger has said in the Messenger this week that it’s only logical that existing suburbs in Playford and Salisbury should be ‘fully developed before we allow the sprawl to gobble up  a;ny more of our historical rural regions’.

In addition to Labor’s Tony Piccolo and the Liberal’s Cosi Costa, Local councillor, Penny Johnston has announced her intention to run as the Greens candidate in Light and has cited improperly planned urban sprawl as a key issue. She has a blog at gawlerpost

Tony Piccolo’s website is here

Cosi Costa’s details are here

 Forum members conducted a tour which highlighted the issues of infrastructure and the lack of planning when it came to solutions for traffic. They talked about the already choked local roads and how this would only be exacerbated with increased population.

 It was highlighted that many residents felt that infrastructure needs for a rapidly increasing population will lag well behind demand and may always be inadequate.

 The issues surrounding providing a suitable south east by pass were discussed and residents around Bentley Road were visited and spoke about the effect a busy road along the currently blocked Bentley road corridor would have on their lives.

 Mr Winderlich commented that as he visits different regions in the State he is seeing some common themes.

“There seems to be a consistent lack of consultation with communities before major announcements. There also seems to be a worrying lack of detail and planning when considering new urban developments”

 Included in the visit was a tour of the proposed urban development around Roseworthy.

The group’s spokesperson, Mr Paul Koch said

 “Urban sprawl in this area as well as Concordia would consume some of the State’s most productive land which can produce crops above the States average, even in difficult seasons.  The Roseworthy development  would also displace a rural business community that has been established to service regional agricultural industries”

 Mr Winderlich also expressed concern about the proposed development in the Roseworthy and Concordia areas.

“Continually moving development into agricultural land has a serious impact on the State’s ability to produce food and puts at threat the food security of the State. Also I think we need to have growth boundaries around the edge of major regional towns like Gawler to, stop the steady creep of urban sprawl onto good farmland, as well as keeping the character and quality of life in these towns”

 Mr Winderlich expressed his appreciation for the information tour and said that with a greater understanding of the issues associated with urban sprawl in the Gawler region, he will be able to represent and voice these concerns as a Parliamentarian.

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.

Although it is a working document it does provide a very good indication of the possible make up of the final deed.

What is very interesting is the lack of financial commitment by Delfin Lend Lease.

 In fact Delfin is quite upfront about their primary objective: achieve commercially acceptable returns.

Reading the document it sounds that Government departments and the community become de-facto agents of Delfin to ensure they turn a profit.

Issues like undergrounding the power and water (which are vital for Delfin to ensure the housing density they need) are placed at the feet of the organisations that own them. It is proposed they are pay for the upfront cost. An ‘equitable portion’ will be recouped from, for example Delfin, in a manner to be agreed with Delfin after the site  is developed. There is no commitment to pay all of the cost, just a proportion sometime in the future.

The connector road from the north to the south of the development is proposed to be funded by the State Government and the Gawler Council. It will be a local road and is therefore unlikely to provide any long-term solutions to general traffic congestion in the town

A very worrying point is the proposed location of a waste water treatment plant, water storage dams and power generation within the Para Woodlands Conservation Park. The Para Woodlands, with funds to manage it, was generously donated to the whole community for revegetation and as a sanctuary for animal life. This Park is an important element in the State’s program to halt species loss, ensuing the long-term survival of plants and animals.

Proposing to site infrastructure in Para Woodlands shows a total disregard for the value the community places on its conservation area over the need for profit.

The document shows how a situation can be skewed towards one entity at the expense of others.  The document highlights the problems that are generated when projects are rushed. It looks more and more like Delfin has not done its home work before bidding for the site and now is trying to reduce its financial obligations to ensure its profitability.

 Surely this process is not healthy for the developer or the community. If a structure plan had been completed originally, developers would be able to bid for land knowing full well the cost  to develop the site.

We currently have a developer who at the beginning of the process was promising a lot of outcomes. They propose to back away from many of them and are relying on the community to fill the gaps in their plans.

 The whole approval process should be halted until all the issues around the development are resolved.  The State Government and Gawler and Barossa councils need to avoid  a rushed process favoured by a powerful corporation that believes it can bring pressure to bear politically

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!