notice of ordinary meeting of council

AGENDA PAGE 1. ATTENDANCE

1.1 Members Present 1.2 Members Apologies 1.3 Members Absent 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.1 “that the minutes of Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee held on Monday 27 June 2016 (MB Folios 31 to 34, inclusive) be accepted as read and confirmed.”

3. BUSINESS ARISING

4. BRIEFINGS

4.1 Grazio Maiorano - Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment

5. REPORTS FOR DECISION

5.1 Appointment of Deputy Presiding Member 5.2 Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment

– Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

7. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

8. GENERAL BUSINESS

9. NEXT MEETING

9.1 To Be Confirmed 10. CLOSURE

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Monday 6 November 2017

Items:

2.1 “that the minutes of Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee held on Monday 27 June 2016 (MB Folios 31 to 34, inclusive) be accepted as read and confirmed.”

Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 1 of 431 6 November 2017

31

Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee 27 June 2016

MINUTES

of

The Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Meeting

of the

District Council of Mallala

Pursuant to the provisions of section 88 (1) of the Local Government Act 1999

HELD IN

Council Chambers Redbanks Road

Mallala

on

Monday, 27 June 2016

The meeting commenced at 6.35 pm

1. ATTENDANCE

1.1 Present Mayor A J (Tony) Flaherty Cr Karen McColl Cr P D (Joe) Daniele Cr Terry-Ann Keen Cr Eddie Stubing Cr Melville Lawrence Cr Steven Jones Cr Anne Picard (from 6.37 pm)

Also in attendance for the meeting: Acting General Manager – Corporate and Community Services

Mr Gary Graham

Strategic Projects Coordinator Ms Carol Muzyk Minute Secretary Ms Andrea Humphrys


32


1.2 Apologies

Cr S M (Marcus) Strudwicke 1.3 Not Present / Leave of Absence

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Recommendation

“that the minutes of Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee held on Monday 11 April 2016 (MB Folios 25 to 30, inclusive) be accepted as read and confirmed.”

2.1 Committee Resolution 2016/ 007

Moved Cr Lawrence Seconded Cr Keen

“that the minutes of Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee held on Monday 11 April 2016 (MB Folios 25 to 30, inclusive) be accepted as read and confirmed.”

CARRIED

3. BUSINESS ARISING

3.1 No Business Arising

4. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTEREST

4.1 Cr Daniele declared an interest in Gawler River.

5. BRIEFINGS

5.1 Greg Mennie – Manager Community Engagement SES - The roles of SES and the Floodsafe partnership

At this juncture, 6.55 pm the Mayor left the Chamber

At this juncture, 6.57 the Mayor returned to the chamber.


33


6. REPORTS

6.1 Strategic Projects and Development Policy Update (CON15/36)

Recommendation

“that the Committee, having considered Item 16.1 -Strategic Projects and Development Policy Update, dated 27 June 2016, receives the report.”

Committee Resolution 2016/ 008

Moved Cr Keen Seconded Cr Stubing

“that the Committee, having considered Item 16.1 -Strategic Projects and Development Policy Update, dated 27 June 2016, receives the report.”

CARRIED

6.2 Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent (CON16/46)

Recommendation

“that the Committee, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it endorses the Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent.”


Moved Cr McColl Seconded Cr Lawrence

“that the Committee, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it endorses the Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent.”

CARRIED

Recommendation

“that the Committee, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it authorise the Chief Executive Officer to submit the Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent to the Minister for Planning for approval.”

At this juncture, 7.24 pm the Mayor left the Chamber

At this juncture, 7.26 the Mayor returned to the chamber.


34



Moved Cr Daniele Seconded Cr Lawrence

“that the Committee, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it authorise the Chief Executive Officer to submit the Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent to the Minister for Planning for approval.”

CARRIED

Recommendation

“that Council, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate any minor amendments to the Statement of Intent as requested by the Minister for Planning”.


Moved Cr McColl Seconded Cr Lawrence

“that Council, having considered Item 6.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection DPA – Draft Statement of Intent, dated 27 June 2016, recommends to Council that it authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate any minor amendments to the Statement of Intent as requested by the Minister for Planning”.

CARRIED

7. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

7.1 No Confidential Items

8 CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 7.45 pm.

Confirmed as a true record.

Presiding Member: ......................................................................

Date: ____/____/___




Items:

5.1 Appointment of Deputy Presiding Member


5.1 Appointment of Deputy Presiding

Member

Department: Development and Community

Report Author: General Manager Development and Community

Date: 6 November 2017 Container No: CON14/35

Document No: D17/27742

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To seek the Committees endorsement of the appointment of a Committee Member to fulfill the role of Deputy Presiding Member for the ensuing one (1) year period.

RECOMMENDATION(S)

“that the Committee, having considered Item 5.1 – Appointment of Deputy Presiding Member, dated 6 November 2017, receives and notes the report and in doing so:-

1. “the Committee, having received the report entitled Appointment of Deputy Presiding Member, dated 6 November 2017, hereby appoints Cr ___________ to the role of Deputy Presiding Member for a period of one (1) year in accordance with Part 4.3 of the Terms of Reference, and to expire at the conclusion of the current term of Council in November 2018.”

BUDGET IMPACT

Estimated Cost: $ 0

Future ongoing operating costs: $ 0

Is this Budgeted? Not Applicable


RISK ASSESSMENT

The appointment of a Deputy Presiding Member will ensure the continued operation of the Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee (SPDC) in the event the Presiding Member elect is absent or not available. It is vital that the SPDC has an appointed representative to preside over meetings. The lack of an appointed Deputy Presiding Member could cause confusion over roles and responsibilities in the absence of the Presiding Member.

______________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Terms of Reference


DETAILED REPORT

Purpose

To seek the Committees endorsement of the appointment of a Committee Member to fulfill the role of Deputy Presiding Member for the ensuing one (1) year period.

Background/History

Current Terms of Reference under Part 4.3 set the term for Deputy Presiding Member at 12 months. The last one year appointment did not occur in 2016 and the last meeting of the SPDC was held 27 June 2016.

Discussion

A Deputy Presiding Member provides crucial support to the Presiding Member, in fulfilling the role of Presiding Member at meetings where the Presiding Member may be absent. Generally speaking, it is advantageous that a Deputy Presiding Member has a broad understanding of the role local government plays in its community and possesses a sound knowledge of the Local Government Act 1999 and the Development Act 1993, particularly insofar as meeting procedures are concerned, in the event the Presiding Member is unable to Presiding Member Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee meetings.

The Committee must now turn its collective mind to the appointment of a Deputy Presiding Member for the period November 2017 – November 2018.

Conclusion

The appointment of a Deputy Presiding Member will satisfy the requirements of the Terms of Reference and further, ensure that the necessary mechanisms are put in place to support the Presiding Member.

References

Legislation

Development Act 1993


Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee (prescribed)

Terms of Reference Adoption by Council: 19 October 2015

Resolution Number: (2015/272)

Administered by: Chief Executive Officer

Last Review Date:

19 October 2015

Next Review Date: 2017

TRIM CON: 14/35 Strategic Outcome 3.2 Effective and efficient planning and building control

Page 1 of 4

Electronic version in TRIM is the controlled version. Printed copies are considered uncontrolled. Before using a printed copy, verify that it is the current version.

1. Establishment

Pursuant to Section 101A of the Development Act 1993 (“the Act”) the Council establishes a Committee to be known as the Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee (Committee) for the purpose of enquiring into and reporting to Council in respect of those matters conferred upon it and as set out in these Terms of Reference.

Section 101A(3) of the Development Act 1993 states that the Local Government Act 1999 will apply in relation to a committee established under this section as if it were a committee established under that Act.

2. Purpose

The purpose of the Committee is to undertake responsibilities detailed in section 101A of the Development Act 1993.

3. Functions

The function of the Committee will be to:

a) to provide advice to the council in relation to the extent to which the council's strategic planning and development policies accord with the Planning Strategy; and

b) to assist the council in undertaking strategic planning and monitoring directed at achieving—

(i) orderly and efficient development within the area of the council; and

(ii) high levels of integration of transport and land-use planning; and

(iii) relevant targets set out in the Planning Strategy within the area of the council; and


of 4


(iv) the implementation of affordable housing policies set out in the Planning Strategy within the area of the council; and

(v) other outcomes of a prescribed kind (if any); and

c) to provide advice to the council (or to act as its delegate) in relation to strategic planning and development policy issues when the council is preparing—

(i) a Strategic Directions Report; or

(ii) a Development Plan Amendment proposal; and

d) other functions (other than functions relating to development assessment or compliance) assigned to the committee by the council.

4. Membership

4.1 All members of the Council are deemed to be members of the Committee.

4.2 The Presiding Member of the Committee will be the Mayor.

4.3 The Committee shall appoint the Deputy Presiding Member of the Committee for a twelve (12) month term.

5. Chairperson

When the Presiding Member and the Deputy Presiding Member are absent from a meeting the Committee Members may appoint a person from those present to act as Chairperson for the duration of the meeting.

6. Quorum

The quorum necessary for the transaction of business shall be 50% plus one (1) of members of the Committee. A duly convened meeting of the Committee at which a quorum is present shall be competent to exercise all or any of the authorities, powers and discretions vested in or exercisable by the Committee.


of 4


7. Voting

7.1 All decisions of the Committee shall be made on the basis of a majority decision of the members present.

7.2 Members present must vote on all resolutions of the Committee. Proxy votes are not permitted.

8. Meeting Frequency

8.1 The Committee will meet on an as-needs basis, unless amended by Council.

8.2 Ordinary meetings of the Committee will be held at times and places determined by Council or, subject to a decision of Council, the Committee. A special meeting of the Committee may be called in accordance with the Act.

8.3 Notice of each meeting confirming the venue, time and date, together with an agenda of items to be discussed, shall be forwarded to each member of the Committee and observers, no later than three (3) clear days before the date of the meeting. Supporting papers shall be sent to Committee members (and to other attendees as appropriate) at the same time.

8.4 The Chief Executive Officer shall ensure that the proceedings and resolutions of all meetings of the Committee, including recording the names of those present and in attendance are minuted and that the minutes otherwise comply with the requirements of the Local Government (Procedure at Meetings) Regulations 2013.

8.5 Minutes of Committee meetings shall be circulated within five (5) days after a meeting to all members of the Committee and to all members of the Council and will (as appropriate) be available to the public.


of 4


9. Reporting to Council

9.1 The Committee is a standing committee of Council and makes recommendations to the Full Council pursuant to Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1999.

9.2 The Committee shall make whatever recommendations to Council it deems appropriate on any area within its Terms of Reference.

10. Delegations

Nil.

11. Meeting Procedures

Procedures at meetings will be in accordance with Council’s Code of Practice – Meeting Procedures and the requirements of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2013 – Part 2 of the regulations will apply.

12. Administrative Resources

The Chief Executive Officer shall provide sufficient administrative resources to the Committee to enable it to adequately carry out its functions.




Items:

5.2 Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment – Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments


5.2 Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment – Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments

Department: Development and Community

Report Author: General Manager, Development and Community

Date: 6 November 2017 Container No: CON16/46

Document No: D17/28164

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment (DPA) was released for its statutory 8 week Public and Agency consultation between 25 August and 20 October 2017.

• Twenty six (26) public and eight (8) agency written submissions were received on the DPA. Twelve (12) submitters requested to be heard and a Public Meeting was consequently held on 30 October 2017.

• A number of changes are required to the DPA as a result of the consultation. Subject to these amendments being undertaken, the DPA is ready to be forwarded to the Minister for approval, following preparation of the final package of documents.

• To achieve the requirements of the Statement of Intent (SOI), the DPA is required to be completed and submitted to the Minister by 1 December 2017. To meet this timeframe, the DPA will need to be endorsed by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 20 November 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

“that the Committee, having considered Item 5.2 - Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment – Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments, dated 6 November 2017, receives and notes the report and in doing so recommends to Council that it:-

1. endorses the Draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA subject to the proposed amendments recommended in the Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments Report.

Or


1. endorses the Draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA subject to the proposed amendments recommended in the Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments Report; and, as follows:

•

•

•

2. recommends to Council that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to forward the DPA to the Minister for Planning for approval under Section 25(14) of the Development Act 1993 and in doing so confirms that the DPA has been prepared in accordance with the Development Act 1993 Section 25(14)(b); and, that the DPA satisfies the matters prescribed in the Development Regulations 2008; and,

3. recommends to Council that the Chief Executive Officer be granted delegated authority to make minor changes of a technical or editorial nature to the DPA to facilitate final approval, as deemed necessary by the Department or the Minister for Planning.”

BUDGET IMPACT

Funds were allocated in the 2016/17 budget to undertake preparation of the DPA.

RISK ASSESSMENT

To facilitate future growth in the food bowl, there is a need to review and amend relevant planning policy in Council’s Development Plan. The Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA is required to be completed and submitted to the Minister by 1 December 2017 to achieve the requirements of the Statement of Intent (SOI).

DETAILED REPORT

Purpose

To provide the Committee with a summary of the representations submitted during the statutory agency and public consultation for the Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA and to consider any amendments required to the DPA prior to presentation to Council for endorsement.

Background

The purpose of the DPA is to assist in implementing the State Government’s strategic and economic priority of enabling major primary production and horticulture growth on the


Northern Adelaide Plains and protecting South Australia’s primary food production region from urban encroachment.

As required under the Development Act 1993, the draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA was released for a statutory 8 week concurrent Public and Agency consultation between 25 August and 20 October 2017.

Consultation Summary and Proposed Amendments

A total of twenty six (26) public and eight (8) agency written representations on the DPA were received during the statutory consultation period (see Attachments 3 and 4). All written agency and public submissions made during the consultation phase were recorded, considered, summarised with responses provided (see Attachments 1 and 2). One additional submission was received significantly after the closure of the consultation period and was unable to be considered.

Public Submissions

A summary of the public submissions and the responses is detailed in the Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments (SCPA) Report in Attachment 1.

The intent of the DPA was supported by the majority of representors. Nine (9) written submissions specifically supported lower minimum allotment sizes in the Horticulture Policy Area – ranging from requests of 2.5 hectare, 4 hectare and 8 hectare blocks. Six (6) written submissions did not support the expansion of the Horticulture Policy Area as proposed and did not want the minimum lot size reduced.

Five (5) representors requested an amendment to the boundary of the new Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road to include additional parcels of land. Two (2) submissions raised concerns about the same Urban Employment Zone in relation to infrastructure pressures, traffic and roads, and noise from businesses operating in the area. There was also one submission requesting an expansion to the Middle Beach Road Urban Employment Zone and the creation of a greenhouse cluster precinct in this location.

Several written submissions made reference to the updated flood mapping for the Gawler River and the new flood mapping for the Light River and raised concerns regarding further development within the flood plain.

The following amendments to the DPA as a result of the public comments are proposed as follows:-

• Amendment of the minimum block size within part of the existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 via creation of a new Precinct. Precinct 5 ‘Southeast Horticulture’ will allow sub-division into 4 hectare allotments (the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area will retain the minimum block size of 8 hectares).

• Adjustment of the Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land.


• Amendments to the Urban Employment Zone to remove ‘Waste or recycling depot’; ‘Concrete batching plant’ and ‘Wrecking yard’ from the Non-Complying Development list.

• Amendment to PDC 9 of the Conservation Zone to reduce the size of the public reserve from the centre line of the Gawler River from 100 metres to 50 metres in line with the recommendations of the Gawler River Open Space Strategy (2009).

Public Hearing

Twelve (12) submitters requested to be heard and a Public Meeting was consequently held on 30 October 2017.

Ten (10) representors spoke at the public meeting, summarising the issues raised in their written submissions and answering questions from Council members on their submissions. Six (6) representors spoke about the Urban Employment Zone on Carslake Road. One (1) representor spoke about the Middle Beach Road Urban Employment Zone. The remaining representors spoke about the expansion of the Horticulture Policy Area, minimum lot sizes and development in the Gawler and Light River flood plains. Two (2) representors that requested to be heard at the public meeting did not attend.

Agency Submissions

A summary of the agency submissions and the responses is detailed in Attachment 2. The DPA was generally supported though several minor amendments were proposed by the Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR, PIRSA, SA Water and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). The following amendments to the DPA as a result of the agency comments are proposed as follows:-

• Minor textual changes to the Explanatory Statement to ensure accurate referencing.

• Minor rewording to the Urban Employment Zone Desired Character Statement in relation to landscaping.

• Deletion of Objective 2 from the Urban Employment Zone due to concerns regarding some of the sensitive uses envisaged which may conflict with the more industrial intent of the Zone.

• Inclusion of ‘land-based inland aquaculture’ and ‘poultry broiler sheds / hatchery’ as exceptions to the Non-Complying list for Intensive Animal Keeping in the Primary Production Zone.

• Deletion of Complying Development provisions for greenhouses in Horticulture Policy Area 3 as the proposed conditions are not sufficiently quantifiable but cannot be removed without compromising the development assessment process for new horticulture developments.

• Minor amendments to the terminology of greenhouse developments throughout the DPA to ensure references are consistent.


• Listing of a ‘dwelling’ as Non-Complying for allotments created after 1 April 2017 to ensure consistency with the EFPA. An exception will be included to allow for the assessment of a caretaker / manager’s residence for an existing horticulture development to be processed as a merit application.

• Updating maps to the latest base mapping available from DPTI. • Minor policy rewordings as recommended by DPTI.

A number of other amendments to the DPA have been proposed following the consultation period to incorporate minor corrections and improvements to policy wording to increase the comprehensibility of the document. The full list of proposed amendments to the Consultation Version of the DPA (see Attachment 5) are set out in the SCPA Report in Attachment 1. The Administration seeks Council endorsement of the DPA amendments.

To achieve the requirements of the SOI timetable, the following key dates for endorsement of the DPA are required to be met by Council:

DPA Task Key Dates

Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee 6 November 2017

Final Draft DPA presented to Council for endorsement 20 November 2017

SOI Deadline for DPA Submission to Minister 1 December 2017

It is intended that a copy of the Post Consultation Version of the DPA with all proposed amendments, will be presented to Council for final endorsement on 20 November 2017.

______________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments (SCPA) Report 2. Summary and Response to Agency Submissions 3. Government Agency Written Comments Received 4. Public Written Submissions Received 5. Draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA (Consultation Version)

References

Legislation

Development Act 1993

Development Regulations 2008

Council Policies

N/A


Attachment 1 to report 5.2

dated 6 November 2017

Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments (SCPA) Report


Adelaide Plains Council

Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment

Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments (SCPA) Report


Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment

Table of Contents

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Consultation ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Consultation Process .................................................................................................................................... 1 Public Notification .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Public and Agency Submissions ........................................................................................................................ 1 Public Submissions ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Agency Submissions ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Review of Submissions and Public Meeting ................................................................................................. 2

Additional Matters and Investigations ................................................................................................................. 3

Additional Consultations ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Timeframe Report ............................................................................................................................................... 3

CEO’s Certification ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation ............................................ 4 General Section: Hazards ............................................................................................................................. 4 Urban Employment Zone .............................................................................................................................. 4 Animal Husbandry Zone ................................................................................................................................ 4 Conservation Zone ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Primary Production Zone ............................................................................................................................... 4 Residential Zone ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Rural Living Zone .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Mapping ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Other .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions ............................................. 7

Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions ............................. 27

Attachment C – Timeframe Report .............................................................................................. 29

Attachment D – Schedule 4A Certificate ..................................................................................... 31

Attachment E – Schedule 4B Certificate ..................................................................................... 33

Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations ............................................................. 34



SCPA Report

1

Introduction This report is provided in accordance with Section 25(13) of the Development Act 1993 to identify matters raised during the consultation period and any recommended alterations to the amendment. The report also provides details of the consultation process undertaken by Council. The SCPA Report should be read in conjunction with the consultation version of the DPA. Where relevant, any new matters arising from the consultation process are contained in this Report. The Amendment reflects the recommendations of Council contained in this Report.

Consultation Consultation Process Statutory consultation with agencies and the public was undertaken in accordance with DPA process B2 (consultation approval not required) and in accordance with Section 25(6) of the Development Act 1993; Regulations 10 and 11 of the Development Regulations 2008; and the agreed Statement of Intent. The following Local Member(s) of Parliament were consulted on the DPA:

(a) Leesa Vlahos MP

(b) Steven Griffiths MP

(c) John Gee MP A response from Steven Griffiths MP was received and is included within Attachment A. The consultation period ran from 25 August 2017 to 20 October 2017. Public Notification Notices were published in the ‘Plains Producer’ and ‘The Bunyip’ on 30 August 2017 and the Government Gazette on 22 August 2017. The DPA documents were also on display at Council’s service centres and libraries and located on Council’s website. A copy of the DPA was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Local Government on 25 August 2017.

Public and Agency Submissions Public Submissions Twenty Six (26) public submissions were received. Key issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

(a) Nine (9) submissions specifically supported lower minimum allotment sizes in the Horticulture Policy Area – ranging from requests of 2.5 hectare, 4 hectare and 8 hectare blocks.

(b) Six (6) written submissions did not support the expansion of the Horticulture Policy Area as proposed and did not want the minimum lot size reduced.


Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment SCPA Report

2

(c) Five (5) representors requested an amendment to the boundary of the new Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road to include additional parcels of land while two (2) submissions raised concerns about the same Urban Employment Zone in relation to infrastructure pressures, traffic and roads, and noise from businesses operating in the area.

(d) One submission requested an expansion to the Middle Beach Road Urban Employment Zone and the creation of a greenhouse cluster precinct in this location.

(e) Several written submissions made reference to the updated flood mapping for the Gawler River and the new flood mapping for the Light River and raised concerns regarding further development within the flood plain.

(f) One submission requested that the public reserve setback to the Gawler River be amended from 100 metres to 50 metres.

A report on each submission (summary, comments, and action taken in response to each submission) is included in Attachment A. Agency Submissions Eight (8) responses were received from agencies. Key issues raised in the responses are summarised as follows:

(a) The Environment Protection Agency raised concerns regarding interface between land uses in relation to the new Urban Employment Zone and requested amendments to the zone provisions to minimise potential future conflicts.

(b) The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR suggested that updates to the Gawler River and Light River flood mapping took place and raised concerns about how greenhouse development and its impacts on flooding would be managed. The NRM Board and DEWNR also commented on water allocation planning, Water Sensitive Urban Design, green infrastructure and biodiversity, coastal mapping and Regional Planning.

(c) PIRSA sought to ensure that the DPA would enable all types of water-dependent primary production and that any potential interface issues between land uses would be appropriately managed. PIRSA considered that there should be fewer restrictions on greenhouse development in flood hazard zones. PIRSA considered that complying development provisions should be more inclusive and made generalised comments in relation to terminology and potential policy rewordings for improved clarity.

(d) SA Water considered that Council could review the boundary between the Horticulture Policy Area and the existing Coastal Conservation Zone to enable horticulture development in areas which do not have a high conservation value.

(e) DPTI raised concerns that assessing dwellings within key horticulture / agricultural areas on merit is not consistent with the State’s position and that new dwellings on allotments created after 1 April 2017 should be listed as non-complying in accordance with the Environment and Food Production Areas (EFPA). DPTI considered that several of the proposed complying conditions for horticulture development in the Primary Production Zone were not sufficiently quantifiable. DPTI also identified the need for updates to the base mapping for the DPA as well as a range of minor policy rewordings for the purposes of clarity and consistency.

Review of Submissions and Public Meeting Copies of all submissions were made available for public review from 23 October 2017 to 30 October 2017 at the Council offices.



SCPA Report

3

Twelve (12) submitters requested to be heard, and therefore a public meeting was held on 30 October 2017. A copy of the proceedings and a summary of verbal submissions made at the public meeting are included in Attachment B.

Additional Matters and Investigations The following additional matters were identified and the following investigations conducted after the consultation process:

(a) Review of the request that additional parcels of land are included within the proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin, as identified through the public consultation written submissions. Council undertook further consultation with landowners in the vicinity of this land parcel (see details below) and due to the level of support received for the inclusion of the additional land parcels in the Carslake Road Urban Employment Zone, the proposed zone boundary has been amended as per the maps in Attachment F.

(b) Review of the request that the minimum allotment size is reduced in Horticulture Policy Area 3. Council undertook additional investigations into the size of existing allotments in the existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 and found that there was a clear delineation between the east and west sides of Old Port Wakefield Road in relation to the size of existing allotments (see maps in Attachment F). Those to the east of Old Port Wakefield Road included a significant number of allotments already below 8 hectares in size compared with those on the western side of Old Port Wakefield Road. As a consequence, Council has proposed the inclusion of a new precinct within existing Horticulture Policy Area 3, which will allow a smaller minimum block size compared with the remainder of the Policy Area. Allotments within the new proposed ‘Precinct 5’ (see map in Attachment F) will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, with allotments within the remaining Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) retaining the minimum block size of 8 hectares.

A copy of additional investigations and documents is provided in Attachment F.

Additional Consultations Additional consultation was conducted with:- H. Anagnostopoulos of 31 Carslake Road, Dublin; R.A. and G.M. Jenkin of S322 Limerock Road, Dublin; and, T. Huynh of Lot 4 Carslake Road, Dublin in relation to the potential inclusion of their land in the amended Urban Employment Zone boundary at Carslake Road, Dublin.

Timeframe Report A summary of the timeframe of the DPA process relative to the agreed Statement of Intent timetable is located at Attachment C. The DPA has proceeded in accordance with the agreed timetable.

CEO’s Certification To be Completed Post-Council Endorsement The consultation process has been conducted and the final amendment prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations as confirmed by the CEO’s Certifications provided in Attachment D (Schedule 4A Certificate) and Attachment E (Schedule 4B Certificate).



4

Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation The following is a summary of the changes recommended to the Amendment following consultation and in response to public submissions and/or agency comments:

General Section: Hazards

(a) Delete new PDC 10 (b) as size limits on residential outbuildings are set on a Zone by Zone basis.

(b) Delete new PDC 11 as intent covered by existing PDCs 38 and 39.

(c) Amend PDC 20 (a) from 7 metres to 10 metres for consistency with PDC 6 (e)

(d) Amend PDC 21 to remove reference to crop rows in line with PIRSA comment.

Urban Employment Zone

(e) Minor rewording to the Urban Employment Zone Desired Character Statement in relation to landscaping.

(f) Deletion of Objective 2 from the Urban Employment Zone due to concerns regarding some of the sensitive uses envisaged which may conflict with the more industrial intent of the Zone.

(g) Amendments to the Urban Employment Zone to remove ‘Waste or recycling depot’; ‘Concrete batching plant’ and ‘Wrecking yard’ from the Non-Complying Development list.

(h) Insertion of new policy to restrict direct access from Limerock Road to blocks in the expanded Urban Employment Zone boundary (see proposed Mapping amendments).

Animal Husbandry Zone

(i) Minor rewording of PDC 3 and PDC 4 for improved clarity as per DPTI comments.

(j) Retain existing PDC 8 to distinguish between horticulture activities outside of the flood plain.

(k) Minor rewording of PDC 12 (b) for clarity as per DPTI comments.

(l) Minor rewording of Non-Complying Development exceptions for ‘Buildings and Structures within any of the Flood Risk Hazard Areas’ and ‘Outbuildings’ for the purposes of clarity and consistency with the remainder of the Development Plan.

(m) Minor amendment to Non-Complying Development for ‘Parking or storage of a vehicle exceeding 9 tonne unladen weight’ to remove exception of a ‘farm vehicle’ as this wording is too all encompassing and does not reflect the intent of the restriction.

Conservation Zone

(n) Amend PDC 9 to reduce the size of the public reserve from the centre line of the Gawler River from 100 metres to 50 metres in line with the recommendations of the Gawler River Open Space Strategy (2009).

Primary Production Zone

(o) Amend Desired Character Statement to reference the inclusion of the Primary Production Zone within the EFPA.



SCPA Report

5

(p) Change Objective 5 from green to black text to reflect source of policy provision.

(q) Rewording of PDC 5, PDC 15, PDC 17 and PDC 19 to reflect the listing of a ‘dwelling’ as Non-Complying for allotments created after 1 April 2017 to ensure consistency with the EFPA (see amendments to Non-Complying Development list below).

(r) Delete PDC 8 (a) as per PIRSA request as provision is vague and unnecessary.

(s) Minor rewording of PDC 19 and PDC 20 for clarity as per DPTI comments.

‐ Horticulture Policy Area 3

(t) Change PDC 3 from red to black text to reflect source of policy provision.

(u) Minor rewording of PDC 4 (d) for clarity as per DPTI comments.

(v) Amend the minimum block size within part of the existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 via creation of a new Precinct. Precinct 5 ‘Southeast Horticulture’ will allow sub-division into 4 hectare allotments (the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area will retain the minimum block size of 8 hectares).

‐ Primary Production Zone – Complying Development List

(w) Deletion of Complying Development provisions for greenhouses in Horticulture Policy Area 3 as the proposed conditions are not sufficiently quantifiable but cannot be removed without compromising the development assessment process for new horticulture developments.

‐ Primary Production Zone – Non-Complying Development List

(x) Listing of a ‘dwelling’ as Non-Complying for allotments created after 1 April 2017 to ensure consistency with the EFPA. An exception will be included to allow for the assessment of a caretaker / manager’s residence for an existing horticulture development to be processed as a merit application.

(y) Inclusion of ‘land-based inland aquaculture’ and ‘poultry broiler sheds / hatchery’ as exceptions to the Non-Complying list for Intensive Animal Keeping.

(z) Update Non-Complying List in respect to advertisements and/or advertising hoarding, action room, bus depot, bus station, dairy, stock slaughter works to ensure they are listed as non-complying only within Horticulture Policy Area 3 as per the pre-existing Development Plan.

(aa) Amend wording of ‘Special Industry’ and ‘Waste reception, storage, treatment or disposal’ in the Non-Complying list to include ‘an organic waste processing facility in association with a horticulture land use’ as an exception. Residential Zone

(bb) In PDC 9, insert word ‘where’ directly following the word ’boundary’ under the heading ‘Parameter’.

(cc) Minor rewording of Non-Complying Development exceptions for ‘Buildings and Structures within any of the Flood Risk Hazard Areas’ for the purposes of clarity and consistency with the remainder of the Development Plan.

Rural Living Zone

(dd) Minor rewording of PDC 17 (b) for clarity as per DPTI comments.

(ee) Minor rewording of Non-Complying Development exceptions for ‘Buildings and Structures within any of the Flood Risk Hazard Areas’ and ‘Outbuildings’ for the purposes of clarity and consistency with the remainder of the Development Plan.



6

(ff) Rewording of the exceptions list for ‘Land Division’ for clarity as per DPTI comments.

Mapping

(gg) Updating maps to the latest base mapping available from DPTI.

(hh) Adjustment of the Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land as per Attachment F.

Other

(ii) Minor textual changes to the Explanatory Statement to ensure accurate referencing.

(jj) Minor amendments to the terminology of greenhouse developments throughout the DPA to ensure references are consistent.

(kk) Reordering of Amendments Instructions Table to avoid confusion.

(ll) Heading correction for Amendment Instructions Table – Instruction 5 to reflect the module name.

(mm) Rewording of Amendments Instructions Table – Instructions 8 and 9 for clarity.

(nn) Delete the number ‘14’ preceding the word ‘No’ in Amendment Instructions Table – Instruction 15.

(oo) Minor policy rewordings as recommended by DPTI.

(pp) Correction of typographical errors.



Attachment A — Summary and Response to Public Submissions

7

Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions

Report on each public submission received (including summary, comments and action taken in response) Sub No.

Name and Address Submission Summary Comment Council Response

1. Ly Luan Le, Vietnamese Farmers Association [email protected]

The consultations are thorough and reflect many aspects for stakeholders to respond. The protection of the food bowl is very important to greenhouse growers. Its economy and operation would enable the workers to sustain their employment. Whatever infrastructure to be developed should bring practical benefits to the genuine growers. For the Flood Risk Area, the design should include buffer or tiered levees to mitigate Mother Nature’s anger, particularly in the new developed sections. Careful consideration should also be given to Council approvals for residential developments to ensure human safety is put as the first priority.

Comments noted. Restrictions on land division and development in the flood plain are included in the Development Plan. Individual hydrological engineering reports are required for built developments in the floodplain, which guide more detailed development control measures on a case by case basis during the development assessment process.

No amendment to the DPA proposed as a result of comments made.

2. Anthony and Bernadette Smith Smith Road, Lower Light [email protected]

Submission is in support of smaller lot sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3. I have sold land to horticultural businesses at Smith and Davis Roads during the last 10 years, which have expanded significantly over time. I have subsequently been approached to sell small acreages for horticultural pursuits but I have had to decline because it contravenes Council guidelines. The approaches so far have been for allotments of around 8ha to 10 ha,

Support for smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. The Queensland Farmers’ Federation, Planning Guide for Intensive Horticulture and Production Nurseries (2015) indicates intensive horticulture requires 2 to 10 ha. The Jensen “The Northern Food Bowl: Virginia and Northern Adelaide Horticultural Plains – A Framework for Future Action (2013) contained the following action:

Allotments within the new Precinct 5 of Council’s existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. Allotments within the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 8 ha (as per the existing DPA policies), but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created


Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment Attachment A — Summary and Response to Public Submissions

8

which I believe is indicative of demand. We are in the process of winding down our current business for retirement which will release substantial horticultural land (160ha current as four 40 ha titles). I believe other owners in the area bounded by Smith, Davis and McEvoy Roads would be supportive of smaller allotments also.

Land division should be non-complying – other than in the proposed new greenhouse cluster – so to limit further fragmentation of land holdings (particularly within the area south of the Gawler River and within the Mallala Horticulture Policy Area).

Having regard to the mentioned studies, it is considered appropriate to provide a range of horticultural allotments. It is recommended that: the existing Development Plan policy

area be amended to include a precinct with a smaller minimum block size than originally proposed in Horticulture Policy Area 3. The new Precinct 5 will permit 4 hectare lots. We expect this has the potential to create an additional 166 allotments.

The remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Area will retain the 8 ha minimum.

allotments.

3. Alberto & Filomena Guiducci, 56-60 (Lot 292) Gawler River Road, Lewiston, SA 5501 [email protected]

Support change to current situation of the land (split into 2.5 hectares each) for the following reasons:- People will have the ability to buy

smaller blocks of land. More manageable and affordable. It will increase manageability for

the landowners. It will also be beneficial to the

Adelaide Plains Council.

Support for smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. Refer to previous comments in relation to Council’s amended minimum block sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3 and the creation of a new Precinct.

Allotments within the new Precinct 5 of Council’s existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. Allotments within the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 8 ha (as per the existing DPA policies), but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments.

4. Jamie Koch Submission of 2 components:- Support for changes proposed in DPA The Urban Employment Zone




9

Pinnakle Agri Business Services [email protected]

1) Expressing our support for the changes

2) Seeking to include Allotment 92, Filed Plan 161606, Hundred of Dublin in the Urban Employment Zone

Represents group of grain growers who are putting together a grain marketing collaborative entity. So far, a trading entity has been set up that sells grain down the supply chain (phase 1). Phase 2 involves building a facility that allows us to execute our sales i.e. pack our grain into shipping containers. Carslake Road, Dublin is a strategic position for us. Our project involves packing our product into shipping containers. In addition, we will have the capability to provide third party packing service to other trading companies. We have recently received interest by other parties interested in acquiring land for alternate agriculture uses. If this parcel of land is included in the proposed boundaries, we would be interested in working with those organisations to secure land, potentially even looking at developing a business hub. The current cleaning plant development on Carslake Road provides us with a synergy service that works in with our potential business. We are working with the Federal Government Farming Together program and have recently met with the RDA to discuss our plan. Allotment 92, sits directly west of the Australian Grain Export. We therefore request an extension of the current proposed zone to include Allotment 92. This will allow subdivision of the land to occur with ease, allowing us to pursue our goal and provide other potential

is noted. Support for adjusting boundary of proposed Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) at Carslake Road is noted. Following the support from the consultation for the expansion of the UEZ to the southern blocks on Carslake Road, Council has adjusted the boundary to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land. The eastern end of the Carslake Road UEZ will be retained in the proposed boundary as the land includes an existing enterprise with a significant export market and its inclusion within the UEZ will provide increased certainty for future growth.

boundary has been amended to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land.



10

users with land options. As a group of grain growers, we fully support any development change that allows value add proportions within the agriculture industry.

5. Andrew and Julie Koch 130 (Lot 3) Carslake Road, Dublin Submitted by Henri Mueller, Director Regional Planning Directions [email protected]

Comments relate specifically to the proposed Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) on Carslake Road, Dublin. We request that Council consider a more compact form and layout for the Zone. Including the portion of the UEZ east of Shannon Road will mean that 41.5% of the UEZ will not have the benefit of sealed road access. The western end of Carslake Road is sealed to a standard suitable for heavy vehicle use accessible to properties on both sides of the road, and has water and three-phase power available. Council is not proposing to make full use of the sealed section of Carslake Road as it has limited the proposed UEZ to the northern side of the road. Whilst we do not disagree with the total size of the UEZ, we are concerned with the Zone’s configuration. Extending the zone east of Shannon Road does not maximise opportunities for the use of existing infrastructure such as sealed roads, water and power. In addition, it ignores the existing trends in development in the area in terms of the orderly progression of growth moving west of the existing Livestock Markets complex and to the South side of Carslake Road and opportunities for collocating in a cluster around existing rural related industry. The owners of 130 Carslake Road are looking into collocation activities, having had interest from several operators looking to establish

Support for adjusting boundary of proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road is noted. Following the support from the consultation for the expansion of the UEZ to the southern blocks on Carslake Road, Council has adjusted the boundary to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land. The eastern end of the Carslake Road UEZ will be retained in the proposed boundary as the land includes an existing enterprise with a significant export market and its inclusion within the UEZ will provide increased certainty for future growth.

The Urban Employment Zone boundary has been amended to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land.




11

businesses on the land. A preferred layout for the UEZ is provided which includes four allotments on the southern side of Carslake Road, creating a total of 370 ha of land within the UEZ. This is 47.5 ha smaller than the Council proposed UEZ but adding the allotment adjacent to the grain export facility would make up the difference. The property at the southern corner of Carslake Road and Port Wakefield Road is both an eyesore and represents an opportunity to attract development at the gateway to the Zone.

6. Louis Marafioti 7 Orietta Court Angle Vale, SA 5117

Making a submission on behalf of the land owners in the Lewiston Horticultural Policy Area 3. Resubmitting submission for review date 16 July 2012 provided to Council for the 2011-2014 Strategic Directions Development Plan Review with amendments following the Jensen Planning Horticulture Report was release to Council on 18 November 2013. Submission Summary:- Total land area in our submission is 284 ha. The submission sets out likely number of allotments and plastic houses based on whether the existing 8ha block size is retained or if this is lowered to 4ha or 2.5ha. Smaller lot sizes are preferred to allow land to be used in a more productive and efficient way. Land owners are reluctant to lease land and tenants want a long term lease but one family cannot operate 36 plastic houses. The submission includes details about the amount of NAIS water that has

Support for smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. The 100 metre Gawler River public reserve was originally established to provide a zone containing linear open space as part of a Regional Open Space System. This was contained within the ROSS (Watercourse) Zone prior to the conversion of the Development Plan to the BDP format. The 2009 Gawler River Open Space Strategy recommends a public reserve of 50 to 100 metres along the river, with a minimum distance of 50 metres. Playford Council maintains a 100 metre reserve strip from the centre line of the Gawler River. There are already a number of built structures between the 100 metre and 50 metre public reserve area along the length of the Gawler River, including greenhouse development. The 2009 Gawler River Open Space Strategy

Allotments within the new Precinct 5 of Council’s existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. Allotments within the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 8 ha (as per the existing DPA policies), but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. PDC 9 of the Conservation Zone is amended to reduce the size of the public reserve from the centre line of the Gawler River from 100 metres to 50 metres in line with the recommendations of the 2009 Gawler River Open Space Strategy. No further amendments to the DPA proposed as a result of comments



12

previously been applied for. If NAIS water does not serve the area, water from the current VPS may become available and another possibility is to purchase bore water. Propose that Council change the existing 100 metres conservation reserve along the Gawler River to 50 metres, as originally recommended by the Gawler River Open Space Strategy (May 2009) - also included as part of the submission.

states that a significant proportion of the River is in private ownership and much of the publically owned land is isolated. As a result, it is unlikely that a coordinated approach to providing recreational facilities along the River could be achieved and that this is not considered essential as a future recreational trail would not need to follow the exact alignment of the Gawler River. As a consequence of the above, Council supports the reduction of the public reserve from 100 metres to 50 metres.

made.

7. Gordon and Lyn Miller 74 Carslake Road, Dublin SA 5501 [email protected]

We wish consideration be given to the inclusion of the last few undeveloped blocks left on the western end of Carslake Road in the new Urban Employment Zone. The western end of Carslake Road is extremely poor quality farming land and broad acre farming (as supported by the current minimum Council block size of 40 ha) is not viable. Most blocks at the western end of Carslake Road have not had crops sown or animals placed on the land for several years. However, other businesses such as the sale yards, composting depot, wase companies, silos, quarries and grain cleaning businesses have all come to the western end of Carslake Road because the rocky and barren land is ideal for their businesses. This part of Carslake Road has a fully sealed and maintained B-double route from Port Wakefield Road as well as 3 phase power available, mains water, excellent mobile coverage etc. It is also advantageous that Carslake Road is a long way from all existing and proposed housing. These factors

Support for adjusting boundary of proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road is noted. Following the support from the consultation for the expansion of the UEZ to the southern blocks on Carslake Road, Council has adjusted the boundary to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land.





13

make the western end of Carslake Road attractive to those businesses who require sizeable amounts of land without coming into conflict with neighbouring properties. Suggest allowing sub-division to 16 ha or 8 ha blocks would allow for further orderly development along the Carslake Road corridor. The submission provides further details on the use of each block, some history of land uses in the area and a map setting out existing ownership and land uses. Council should encourage long term employment activities along Carslake Road by accepting these new business ventures and including the remaining blocks at the western end of Carslake Road in the Urban Employment Zone.

8. J & H Trimboli, M & D Trimboli, & M Trimboli Multiple Lots, Middle Beach Road, Two Wells Submitted by Henri Mueller, Director Regional Planning Directions [email protected]

Comments relate to the Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) on Middle Beach Road and the proposed Horticulture Policy Area 3 on the northern side of Middle Beach Road. It is requested that Council consider a minor extension to the UEZ and at the same time introduce a Greenhouse Cluster Precinct in the area north of Middle Beach Road in place of the current proposal for a general Horticulture Policy Area. Council’s adoption of a UEZ on Middle Beach Road is acknowledged and appreciated. However, the current configuration of the UEZ would isolate some of our existing farm infrastructure located on the adjoining allotment

Support for the new Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) at Middle Beach Road is noted. Council does not support the extension of this Zone to incorporate partial areas of allotments. The Virginia and Northern Adelaide Horticulture Plains Study (2013) supported ‘regional clustering of greenhouses generally south of the Gawler River (where land holdings are already significantly fragments)’ (VNAP Framework p. 9). Although Council generally supports the development of greenhouse cluster precincts, without further detailed investigations, it is not possible to determine the best locations for

No further changes to the Urban Employment Zone are proposed. Allotments within the new Precinct 5 of Council’s existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. Allotments within the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 8 ha (as per the existing DPA policies), but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments.



14

(S335) and it would be preferable to have these consolidated within the UEZ that also incorporates the eastern portion of the adjoining lot 202 (map provided). This part of lot 202 is unsuitable for primary production and a major transport company has also expressed an interest in the land for heavy vehicle storage and transport related activity. Creating such an extensive horticulture policy area as proposed by Council is likely to result in fragmentation of rural allotments with no guarantee of orderly and economic development. The recommendations of the Northern Food Bowl – A Framework for Future Action in relation to greenhouse clustering have not been included in the DPA and there is no explanation for its omission. In addition, stipulating a 8 ha allotment minimum runs counter to the goal of introducing policy catering for a diverse range of allotment sizes – except for designated greenhouse cluster precincts. We strongly advice Council to revisit its recommendations as the advice was provided by industry experts. An expert report in relation to allotment sizes and the creation of greenhouse cluster precincts by Trevor Linke is including as part of the submission. It considers that for a medium to hi-tech horticulture cluster, lot sizes of between 2.5 ha to 4 ha would be the appropriate size. Trevor recommends adopting a 4 ha minimum allotment size to accommodate the development of a high tech horticulture precinct and notes that the minimum allotment size in Gawler’s Rural Zone is 4 ha.

greenhouse cluster precincts within the APC area. Greenhouse clustering precincts could be considered under the new Planning and Design Code. At this point, more detailed information will be available as to where the NAIS infrastructure will be located and where proposed clusters of horticulture growers are requesting water pipelines to be located, which is likely to be the best indicator of where greenhouse cluster precincts should be identified. The proposed area for the expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 is based on the recommended boundary set out in the Mallala Broad Acre Farming Study (2015), which was endorsed by Council. Based on the proposed extension of the NAIS and the estimated additional land for horticulture purposes, required, Council considers that the proposed new boundary for Horticulture Policy Area 3 is justified. Support for smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted, and specifically the 4 ha lot size recommended in the report by Trevor Linke with regard to high tech horticulture precincts. Refer to previous comments in relation to Council’s amended minimum block sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3 and the creation of a new Precinct.




15

It is considered that the establishment of a greenhouse cluster precinct north of Middle Beach Road, should be included in the DPA, with a minimum allotment size of 2.5 ha within the precinct. Such an inclusion would be consistent with the findings of the Northern Food bowl study.

9. Phillip Earl Two Wells [email protected]

I believe that the proposed area is too large and will result in smaller acreage development spread over the whole area thus increasing problems for broad acre (General farming). A smaller dedicated area would be a better option and allow for reclaimed water to be available for horticulture purposes.

The proposed area for the expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 is based on the recommended boundary set out in the Mallala Broad Acre Farming Study (2015). Based on the proposed extension of the NAIS and the estimated additional land for horticulture purposes, required, Council considers that the proposed new boundary for Horticulture Policy Area 3 is justified.

No amendments proposed as a result of comments made.

10. HortEx Alliance Inc. PO Box 1644, Virginia SA 5120 Howard Hollow, Executive Officer – General Manager R & D [email protected]

Hortex Alliance represents horticulture producers of all sizes in the region. It commends APC for its foresight and support for primary producers of the Northern Adelaide Plains. In relation to the proposed changes to the DPA, Hortex Alliance makes the following comments:- 1. Updating the Hazards and Interface modules to align with SAPPL v 6 is commendable but there should also be provisions to eliminate potential conflict between rural living or town dwelling and nearby primary production zones so that in future, residents cannot complain to government agencies with a view to causing interruption to the normal activities of primary producers in the zone.

1. Council wide provisions on managing interfaces between land uses are included within the Development Plan.

1. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made.



16

2. Inserting updated flood mapping is advisable but flood hazard levels should be somewhat alleviated by the flood mitigation measures proposed through the GRFMA. Existing producers should not be restricted from continuing on with their existing primary production enterprises in the flood zone if they wish to do so and take their risk. Amending the non-complying tables for place greater controls on development in high risk flood areas and updating policies relating to fencing in the flood plain are commendable but should not impinge on existing primary producers in the area. Updating flood policy in relation to the Light River is commendable but again should not impact on existing producers in any way. 3. Proposed policy infers that a dwelling on any size allotment is not non-complying development as has been widely publically stated due to fears of ‘rural living by stealth’ by the current Minister of Planning. Many small horticulture producers need to live on site to monitor crops for security reasons as well as convenience. Hortex Alliance strongly urges APC to support the case for dwelling establishment on horticultural production units with the Minister prior to lodgement of the DPA. 4. Request amendments to the

2. Future flood mitigation works will change the level of flooding on blocks within the district. This will be taken into consideration through a future update to flood mapping for the area. For individual development applications, a hydrological report that provides an accurate assessment of flooding on a block will ensure that changes to the flood mapping as a result of mitigation works is taken into account during the development assessment process. The updated flood maps are already being used to assess development in the Council area. Inclusion of the updated flood maps in the Development will only impact upon new development and will not affect existing land use rights that were established prior to the flood mapping coming into place. 3. Council considers that the ability to live on and farm a block of land is key to allowing smaller family farms to continue to have a presence within the district. However, Council is required to ensure that the DPA is consistent with the intent of the recent EFPA legislation, which prohibits dwellings on new sub-divisions. 4. The references to water in the

2. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made. 3. Residential dwellings will be discouraged, however, the DPA will be amended to permit caretakers or managers building. 4. No amendments proposed as a




17

wording of the updated Desired Character Statement to refer to ‘Class A Reclaimed Water’ and horticulture and allied industries should be explained in detail. 5. Support new policy which envisages on site energy generation where ancillary to an existing use, which will enable primary producers to reduce costs. 6. Amend land division policies to minimum lot sizes of between 2.5-4 ha to allow small to medium enterprises to be established. Although often low tech, such businesses will support a greater workforce than a large corporate greenhouse. 7. Insert new complying development provisions which facilitate horticulture across the zone.

Desired Character Statement are generalised to take into account different types and sources of water. It is not considered necessary to make any further changes in relation to this. The definition of ‘horticulture’ is set out under Schedule 1a of the Development Regulations 2008. Examples of allied industries are provided in the Desired Character Statement. 5. Support for on-site energy generation is noted. 6. Support for smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. Refer to previous comments in relation to Council’s amended minimum block sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3 and the creation of a new Precinct. 7. Following discussions with DPTI, Council is removing the complying development status for some forms of horticulture development as the conditions proposed cannot be removed or sufficiently quantified without compromising the development assessment process for new horticulture developments. This is an area that could be revisited as part of

result of comments made. 5. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made. 6. Allotments within the new Precinct 5 of Council’s existing Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 4 ha allotments, but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. Allotments within the remaining existing Horticulture Policy Area (outside of Precinct 5) and the new expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 will be permitted to be divided into 8 ha (as per the existing DPA policies), but dwellings will be listed as non-complying on the newly created allotments. 7. Horticulture complying development standards to be deleted from DPA.



18

8. Hortex Alliance supports updates to the public notification table for horticulture, provided the setbacks are not too intrusive on the productive capacity of the land being used for horticulture production. Cat 1 or 2 is desirable. 9. Support concept of the Urban Employment Zones provided there is no negative impact on primary producers. 10. It is important to allow primary producers to have on farm packing sheds, machinery sheds etc so their business is not fragmented and a second industry zone does not need to be created.

the new Planning and Design Code. 8. Support for Primary Production Zone public notification requirements is noted. 9. Support for new Urban Employment Zones is noted. 10. On farm packing sheds, machinery sheds etc are envisaged within the Primary Production Zone.

8. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made. 9. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made. 10. No amendments proposed as a result of comments made.

11. Benjamin Piller, Dublin Recycling P/L 256 Carslake Road, Dublin, Submitted by Henri Mueller, Director Regional Planning Directions [email protected]

Owners of 256 Carslake Road, Dublin and are in the process of seeking development approval for a waste transfer station and recycling depot. Request Council to include this block in the proposed Urban Employment Zone (UEZ). This use is currently non-complying and the potential for collocation of similar developments on the land may also be non-complying. A more appropriate form of zoning would therefore be desirable. Amendments to the UEZ are set out in the submission in order to facilitate the intended development on the subject allotment.

Development approval for the waste transfer station referred to at 256 Carslake Road is currently awaiting concurrence (312/368/2016). Council agrees that a waste or recycling depot should be considered as a merit form of development within the Urban Employment Zone.

Removal of ‘Waste or recycling depot’, ‘Concrete batching plant’ and ‘Wrecking yard’ from the Non-Complying Development list in the Urban Employment Zone.

12. John BC Gordon 3702 Port Wakefield Highway, Lower Light

To put a horticulture zone anywhere in the Light River flood plain is a disaster waiting to happen. If any form of horticulture becomes flooded in future

The Light River Flood Plain occupies an area of over 25,000 hectares within the Council area and a blanket ban on all forms of horticulture within the area





19

years, there will be pressure to control flood waters and a repeat of what is happening at the Gawler River will occur. Submission includes records of previous flood events in area. The proposed rezoning will also result in limitations to the type and timing of chemicals used by broadacre farmers. Also, the herbicides, insecticides and fungicides used by horticulturists could jeopardise the ability for broadacre farmers to sell livestock and hay which already have declarations made regarding chemicals used on and adjacent to their properties regarding withholding periods.

is impractical. The proposed DPA lists all forms of built development as non-complying within the High Flood Hazard Area. There are additional restrictions on developments within the flood plain for more specific land use types and land divisions. This includes requirements to store hazardous substances, including chemicals above the highest extent of a 1-in-100 ARI Flood event. All applications for development within the flood plain require an engineers hydrological report supporting the development and ensuring that any flood issues are adequately mitigated.

13. Robert and Kerry Bolland [email protected]

Support proposed changes to Council’s Development Plan, particularly the changes to the policies for the Primary Production Zone to facilitate further horticulture development. We think that allowing the minimum 20 acres subdivision to be brought down to smaller blocks for horticulture purposes will only enhance the area’s link to the northern food bowl and give people the opportunity to purchase smaller blocks, move into the area and start new businesses.

Support for the changes to the Primary Production Zone and smaller minimum lot sizes in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. Refer to previous comments in relation to Council’s amended minimum block sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3 and the creation of a new Precinct.


14. Sue Reid 86 Hall Road, Redbanks

The area considered for re-zoning is a considerable size and is likely to mean horticulture will be scattered throughout the region. I believe this will cause extra pressures for arable farmers. There is always the risk of chemicals drifting. Having a greenhouse next to the property has meant numerous delays in spraying to

The proposed area for the expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 is based on the recommended boundary set out in the Mallala Broad Acre Farming Study (2015). Based on the proposed extension of the NAIS and the estimated additional land for horticulture purposes, required, Council considers that the proposed




20

ensure of the neighbours crops. Scattered properties will mean causing larger areas of infrastructure required – including water availability - to meet the needs of horticulture farmers. The infrastructure/roads aren’t adequate in many areas and will cause unnecessary expenditure to Council/ratepayers having to regrade roads more often. It would be more productive to reduce the area to be re-zoned and build from the existing horticulture area as it is closer to the main road routes. It would allow road maintenance to be more specific reducing costs and minimise disruption to other types of farming.

new boundary for Horticulture Policy Area 3 is justified. Council wide provisions on managing interfaces between land uses are included within the Development Plan. An increase in economic development in the Council area would help contribute to meeting the costs of infrastructure upgrades and ongoing maintenance.

15. Greenwheat Freekeh Pty Ltd 495 Carslake Road, Dublin Submitted by David Barone, Jensen Plus

We are generally supportive of the direction and overall vision of the DPA to assist the State Government’s strategic and economic priorities of major primary production, horticulture growth and primary food production on the Northern Adelaide Plains. The rezoning of Carslake Road, Dublin to an Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) will facilitate the accommodation of allied food industries associated with food processing, packing and manufacturing, and further supports the existing use of Greenwheat Freekeh’s site as well as the potential future expansion and diversification of the business. Other allied uses could also benefit from clustering into this location. The location also recognises the importance of mainaining a hight level of amenity for this precinct, reflective of the high quality ood production rand envisaged for this location (which also need to be supported by infrastructure

Support for DPA and zoning of Carslake Road Urban Employment Zone are noted.





21

investment).

16. Neil Gregor 206 Gregor Road, Reeves Plains

Family has been broadacre farming for 90 years in Reeves Plains with paddocks situated between Oliver and Verner Roads. Rezoning a large area for horticulture will lead to uncertainty and under investment by the broadacre landholders. Allowing horticulture to establish in an adhoc manner in the general farming zone is already causing land conflict and hence productivity losses. Broadacre spraying and burning is now very challenging for all the neighbours of these shade houses. The horticulture zone should be expanded out from the current area where there is the appropriate infrastructure and suitable allotment sizes there.

The proposed area for the expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 is based on the recommended boundary set out in the Mallala Broad Acre Farming Study (2015). Based on the proposed extension of the NAIS and the estimated additional land for horticulture purposes, required, Council considers that the proposed new boundary for Horticulture Policy Area 3 is justified. Horticulture uses are already a merit form of development in the Primary Production Zone outside of the current Horticulture Policy Area 3. Council wide provisions on managing interfaces between land uses are included within the Development Plan.


17. Steve Kennedy and Steve Jones Lot 6 and Lot 7 Limerock Road, Dublin

Request that Council extend the proposed Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) boundary at Carslake Road to include the quarry sites at Lots 6 and 7 Limerock Road. We believe that the sealed road portion of Carslake Road is the best location of the UEZ and that this should be extended to both sides of the road, including the subject lots which have access to both Carslake and Limerock Roads. Once the sites have been quarried, it would be desirable to utilise the excavated areas as a base for industry e.g. development of an abattoir. We are concerned that an abattoir may be non-complying (under Special Industry) in the current Development Plan and therefore request that a multispecies

Support for adjusting boundary of proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road is noted. Following the support from the consultation for the expansion of the UEZ to the southern blocks on Carslake Road, Council has adjusted the boundary to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land. While abattoirs are defined separately from ‘Stock slaughter works’ and do not necessarily fall under the category of Special Industry, Council consider that it would be appropriate to include an exception to the Special Industry listing to exclude stock slaughter works, to ensure that this use can be considered on merit.

The Urban Employment Zone boundary has been amended to include an additional nine (9) parcels of land. Listing of ‘Stock slaughter works’ as an exception in the Non-Complying Development list in the Urban Employment Zone.



22

abattoir be listed as an exclusion from non-complying status next to Special Industry in the procedural section of the zone.

18. Trevor Kittel Lot 79 Roberts Road, Lewison

Supports 2.5 ha / 5 acre allotments with the horticulture zone, especially along the Gawler River where horticulture land is at its best. It will add the possibility of lots more employment within the area and will add to the sustainability of the area. Have had many approaches to purchase smaller allotments and around 5 acres is a popular request as it will be more affordable to them.

Support for smaller blocks in Horticulture Policy Area 3 is noted. Refer to previous comments in relation to Council’s amended minimum block sizes in Horticultural Policy Area 3 and the creation of a new Precinct.


19. Melanie Kittel Lot 79 Roberts Road, Lewison

Same submission letter as Trevor Kittel.

See response to Trevor Kittel submission above


20. Symon Kittel Lot 79 Roberts Road, Lewison

Same submission letter as Trevor Kittel.



21. Robert Berryman 415 Carslake Road, Dublin

Mixed views on rezoning of the Carslake Road Urban Employment Zone – supports potential lower minimum lot sizes but is concerned about the infrastructure pressures from new businesses, including impacts on the roads. Also concerns regarding operating conditions e.g. noise from 24/7 food processing businesses.

Support for smaller block sizes in the Urban Employment Zone is noted. Operational conditions for businesses are considered during the development assessment process. More general noise issues will be dealt with under the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 legislation.


22. Brett Sharman MD & LA Sharman Pty Ltd

Great concern over the location of the Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) at its proposed location on Carslake Road. The Carslake Road / Frost Road intersection is extremely dangerous due to it being on a rise and makes seeing traffic impossible. There are

The majority of traffic to the Carslake Road Urban Employment Zone will be accessing Carslake Road from Port Wakefield Road and traffic at the Frost Road intersection is not anticipated to increase significantly.





23

existing problems with traffic on Carslake Road failing to give way to traffic on Frost Road – where the majority of traffic currently travels. The development of the UEZ will increase traffic on Carslake Road and exacerbate the intersection issues. To fix the issue the intersection needs to be levelled out and the SA Water building removed.

It is anticipated that if the Carslake UEZ results in significant growth within the area, that road and intersection upgrades will follow.

23. Steven Griffiths MP Member for Goyder

Contacted by some in the Adelaide Plains area who are concerned by the DPA as it appears to have been rushed at the direction of Minister Rau. Also concerns with issues surrounding flood risk from the Light river and Gawler River and the review of membership of APC with the GRFMA. However, I have to believe that these matters will be resolved and the issue to solely be considered is the DPA. I confirm my support on the DPA, specifically in relation to the opportunities I am advised it will provide to the Adelaide plains area with the NAIS – as long as the cost of water can be controlled so as to be attractive to growers.

Comments noted. No action required.

24. Light Regional Council Craig Doyle, General Manager, Strategy & Development

1. For the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, suggest that APC use ‘General’ rather than ‘Low’ as a descriptor. Light Regional switched from Low to General as ‘Low’ might imply that the risk is somehow lessened. The use of ‘General’ also provides consistency with the approach use for identifying bushfire risk areas. 2. Mapping still refers to Mallala Council and the DPA provides an opportunity to update these.

1. The proposed flood hazard mapping categories were the categories that were in place when the latest mapping updates were undertaken. The use of the term ‘low’ also marries with the national best practice report (Australian Government – Handbook 7, 2013) 2. Council is keen to update its Development Plan and mapping to reflect the new Council name but this will be guided by DPTI.




24

3. The significant expansion of Horticulture Policy Area 3 abuts its western side with Light Regional Council which has a minimum allotment size of 33 hectares. In the context of the EFPA, Light Regional recommends that the qualifiers under PDC 18 of the Primary Production Zone are strengthened further to ensure a productive, efficient and sustainable primary production activity is approved and in place prior to land division for allotments of 8 ha being considered for this expanded area. This would mitigate the future risks of such areas otherwise becoming similar to Rural Living Areas.

3. The EFPA prohibits the construction of dwellings on new sub-divisions, which will prevent sub-divisions occurring for the purposes of residential development. In respect to the Horticulture Policy Area, PDC 18 needs to be read with PDC 19 that incorporates more stringent requirements.

25. Margaret Tiller Mallala

The protection of and promoting sustainable growth of primary production land is an admirable aim but the DPA falls short of achieving that purpose due to the size of allotments and the integrity of the flood risk assessment to process the approval of these allotments in a flood plain. The Gawler River Flood Plain has had management problems which have had and continue to need costly financial commitment. The Light River flood plain mapping is an inadequate planning tool to assess the creation and the development on 8 ha allotments. In 2016 floodwaters from the Light river produced hazards which surpassed expectations of any previous flood events. A proliferation of small horticulture holdings brings all the complications of the greater density of occupation and the adverse impacts on downstream

The Light River Flood Plain occupies an area of over 25,000 hectares within the Council area and avoiding all forms of horticulture development within the area is impractical. The proposed DPA lists all forms of built development as non-complying within the High Flood Hazard Area. There are additional restrictions on developments within the flood plain for more specific land use types and land divisions. The flood mapping for the Gawler and Light Rivers was undertaken by Australian Water Environments (AWE), which has provided a high level of engineering expertise in preparing flood mapping for APC. The flood mapping is as up-to-date and accurate as it is currently possible to achieve. The flood mapping has been supported in the ERD Court as being appropriate for Council to rely upon when undertaking the assessment of





25

property owners. It is the responsibility of APC to ensure that land in the flood plain is not subjected to further risks by decreasing the size of the allotments. The boundaries of the Horticulture Policy 3 need realignment to ensure the Light River flood plain is avoided.

development within the floodplain. Individual hydrological engineering reports are required for built developments in the floodplain, which guide more detailed development control measures on a case by case basis during the development assessment process.

26. Neil Tiller Mallala

The two documents used as the main reference points for the creation of the amendment do not provide an accurate and representative picture of broadacre agriculture and its economic value to the community. The Mallala Broadacre Farming Study quotes that 16,350 ha could be made available and dedicated to irrigated horticulture if 80 GL of water was available in fact only 12 GL is really available, therefore only 2,500 ha is actually needed. To maintain the agricultural importance and stability of the zone, it is vital that the size of the land holdings is not significantly reduced, or dwelling densities increased, and that future pressure for development in the zone will not result in the conversion of agricultural land to less productive uses. Reducing holdings from 40 ha to 8 ha will increase dwelling density. Concern that proposed policy will allow for two liveable dwellings on an 8ha block. Is 8 ha enough to sustain an economically productive, efficient and sustainable primary production area given the need to create economies of size. Horticulture can still happen in the Primary Production and on larger blocks.

The Virginia and Northern Adelaide Horticulture Plains Study (2013) was a joint study undertaken with the then District Council of Mallala, City of Playford, the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, PIRSA, Barossa DPA and Hortex. The ‘Study Area’ included all land within Council’s existing Primary Production Zone up to just south of the Mallala township. The proposed area for the expanded Horticulture Policy Area 3 is based on the recommended boundary set out in the Mallala Broad Acre Farming Study (2015), which was endorsed by Council. The extent of the NAIS was not known during the completion of the study. However, based on the proposed extension of the NAIS and the estimated additional land for horticulture purposes, required, Council considers that the proposed new boundary for Horticulture Policy Area 3 is justified. The EFPA prohibits the construction of dwellings on new sub-divisions, which will prevent sub-divisions occurring for the purposes of residential development. 8 ha is considered to be relatively large for a horticulture block and there is a




26

All this development is proposed to occur up to the southern boundary of the River Light. Smaller block sizes and development of dwellings throughout the flood plain will only increase the mitigation and liability as we have seen currently with the Gawler River. Why development more flood plain area?

significant level of support amongst horticulture growers for smaller lot sizes within the Primary Production Zone. The use of land for horticulture is determined by the land owner (and by the markets) and if land owners want to continue broadacre farming on larger blocks of land, they will still be able to do so if the proposed rezoning takes place. The Light River Flood Plain occupies an area of over 25,000 hectares within the Council area and avoiding all forms of horticulture development within the area is impractical. The proposed DPA lists all forms of built development as non-complying within the High Flood Hazard Area. There are additional restrictions on developments within the flood plain for more specific land use types and land divisions. Individual hydrological engineering reports are required for built developments in the floodplain, which guide more detailed development control measures on a case by case basis during the development assessment process.



Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

27

Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

Twelve (12) submitters requested to be heard, and therefore a public meeting was held on 30 October 2017. In total, ten (10) representors spoke at the Public Meeting. Sub No.

Name of Respondent Summary of Verbal Submission/Issues Raised Council Response

1. Louis Marafioti Mr Marafioti summarised the inclusions made in this formal written submission and stated that he was representing 10 land owners in the Lewiston Horticultural Policy Area.

Council’s response is as discussed in Attachment A.

2. Margaret Tiller Ms Tiller repeated her concerns with the Light River and Gawler River flood plain mapping and queried the consultation that had been carried out in relation to the DPA.


3. Howard Hollows, Hortex Alliance Inc. Mr Hollows repeated the issues raised in his written submission.


4. J & H Trimboli, M & D Trimboli, & M Trimboli, represented by Henri Mueller

Mr Meuller repeated the issues raised in his written submission on behalf of the Trimboli family in relation to the proposed Urban Employment Zone at Middle Beach Road, Two Wells.


5. Andrew and Julie Koch, represented by Henri Mueller

Mr Meuller repeated the issues raised in his written submission on behalf of Andrew and Julie Koch in relation to the proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin.


6. Benjamin Piller, Dublin Recycling P/L represented by Henri Mueller

Mr Meuller repeated the issues raised in his written submission on behalf of Benjamin Piller in relation to 256 Carslake Road, Dublin.


7. Gordon Miller Mr Miller repeated the request from his written submission that land on the southern side of Carslake Road should be included in the new Urban Employment Zone.


8. Jamie Koch, Pinnakle Agri Business Services Mr Koch repeated the request from his written Council’s response is as discussed in Attachment A.


Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment Attachment B – Summary and Response to public Meeting Submissions

28

submission that Lot 92 Carslake Road, Dublin should be included in the proposed Urban Employment Zone.

9. Robert Berryman Mr Berryman expressed his support for expanding the proposed Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin to include the southern blocks on Carslake Road. He suggested access should be blocked from Frost Road to negate any potential traffic issues. Mr Berryman raised concerns regarding the types of businesses that would be included in the Urban Employment Zone and issues with operating hours, noise and odours from industrial uses.

Council’s response is set out in Attachment A. Mr Berryman’s support for the southern expansion of the Urban Employment Zone at Carslake Road, Dublin is noted.

10. Steve Kennedy Mr Kennedy repeated the request from his written submission that Lots 6 and 7 Limerock Road, Dublin should be included in the proposed Urban Employment Zone and spoke about future plans for an abattoir on the site.




Attachment C — SCPA Timeframe Report: Process B – without consultation approval / 1 Step

29

Attachment C – Timeframe Report

SCPA Timeframe Report: Process B – without consultation approval / 1 Step

The SOI was agreed by the Minister and Council on 12 April 2017 Key steps Period agreed to in SOI Actual time taken Reason for

difference (if applicable)

Investigations conducted and DPA prepared

12 weeks 12 weeks

Agency and public consultation period (report on any delays incurred by agencies

8 weeks 8 weeks

Public Hearing held, submissions summarised and DPA amended in accordance with Council’s assessment of submissions. Summary of Consultations and Proposed Amendments submitted to Minister for approval.

6 weeks 6 weeks



Attachment D — Schedule 4A Certificate

31

Attachment D – Schedule 4A Certificate



Attachment E — Schedule 4B Certificate

33

Attachment E – Schedule 4B Certificate

To be Completed Post-Council Endorsement


Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protections Areas Development Plan Amendment Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations

Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations


Land Not Withina Council Area

(Metro)

PlayfordCouncil

LightRegionalCouncil

WakefieldRegionalCouncil

LandNot Within a Council

Area (Coastal Waters)

PrProMal/4

Mal/10

Mal/11

Mal/9

Mal/14

Mal/15

Mal/17

Mal/18

Mal/19

Mal/13

Mal/12

Mal/2

Mal/3

Mal/5

Mal/6

Mal/7Mal/8

Windsor

Thompson'sBeach

Long Plains

Pinery

Dublin

LowerLight

Mallala

Wild Horse Plains

Parham

Redbanks

Virginia

PORT W

AKEFIELD H

WY

PORT

WAKEFIELD

HW

Y

PORT

WAKEFIELDH

WY

NOR

TH

ERN EXP

TRA

EG

ER

RD

MA

LLA

LA R

D

PENFIELD RD

REDBANKS R

D

WOMMA RD

A NG

L

VALE RD

HEAS

LIP

RD

MALLALA COUNCIL

Zone Map Mal/1

1 mk00

Zones

Primary ProductionPrPro

Zone Boundary

Development Plan Boundary

See enlargement map for accurate representation.

TwoWellsTwo

Wel lsTwo

Wells

GAWLER RD

Urban EmploymentUE

UE


MALLALA COUNCIL

Zone Map Mal/24Zones

Urban EmploymentUE


Zone Boundary


MA

P M

al/4

Adj

oins

0 2,000

UE

PrPro

PrPro


LEWISTONTWO WELLS

PORT GAWLER

MIDDLE BEACH

VIRGINIA

GAWLER RIVER

ANGLE VALE

Parcel area Z0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250m

Policy Area 3 (Horticulture)Medium and high flood hazard

Parcel area (ha)0 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 3.03.1 - 4.04.1 - 5.05.1 - 6.06.1 - 7.07.1 - 8.0Over 8ha

Policy Area 3 (Horticulture) - Adelaide Plains Council

JOB REF. 17ADL-0158PREPARED BY APDATE 31.10.2017REVISION 1DATA SOURCE DPTI, Adelaide Plains Council

Parcel area class Number of parcels0 to 1 ha 191 to 2 ha 82 to 3 ha 133 to 4 ha 134 to 5 ha 185 to 6 ha 96 to 7 ha 47 to 8 ha 14Over 8 ha 121Total 219


LEWISTON

TWO WELLS

GAWLER RIVER

VIRGINIA

ANGLE VALE

DAWKINS ROAD

GAWLER RIVER ROAD

JOHNS ROAD

PE

DE

RIC

K R

OA

D BO

UN

DA

RY

RO

AD

BE

THE

SD

A RO

AD

COATS ROAD

WILLIA

MS

RO

AD

JUD

D R

OA

D

BA

KE

R R

OA

D

GE

RM

AN

TOW

N R

OA

D

RO

BE

RTS

RO

AD

GREENS ROAD

ELLIS ROAD

OLD PORT WAKEFIELD ROAD (TW

O WELLS)

TRIM ROAD

TOW

ER

RO

AD

FRO

ST R

OA

D (LE

WIS

TON

)FR

OS

T RO

AD

PORT GAWLER ROAD

ST G

EO

RG

E B

OU

LEVA

RD

LEILE

TE R

OA

D

MCCORD ROAD

JOHNS ROAD WEST

TOR

ELE

TE R

OA

D

CA

NN

IZZAR

O R

OA

D

KARAPAS COURT

NY

MP

H R

OA

D

ALMOND COURT

HEND

O PLAC

E

MCCORD ROAD

Parcel area Z0 500 1,000250m

Policy Area 3 (Horticulture)Medium and high flood hazard

Parcel area (ha)0 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 3.03.1 - 4.04.1 - 5.05.1 - 6.06.1 - 7.07.1 - 8.0Over 8ha

Policy Area 3 (Horticulture) East Section - Adelaide Plains Council

JOB REF. 17ADL-0158PREPARED BY APDATE 31.10.2017REVISION 1DATA SOURCE DPTI, Adelaide Plains Council

Parcel area class Number of parcels0 to 1 ha 151 to 2 ha 32 to 3ha 123 to 4ha 104 to 5ha 135 to 6ha 96 to 7ha 47 to 8ha 8Over 8ha 47Total 121


Land Not Withina Council




PlayfordCouncil


(Metro)

Mal/12

Mal/18

Mal/19

Mal/13

Mal/10

Mal/8

Mal/2

Mal/4Mal/3

Mal/5

Mal/6

Mal/7

Mal/17

Mal/11

Mal/9

Mal/14

Mal/15Dublin

Windsor

Thompson's Beach

LongPlains

Pinery

Lower Light

Two Wells

Redbanks

Parham

Wild Horse Plains

Mallala

Virginia

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

PORT WAKEFIELD HW

Y

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

NO

RTHE

RN EXP

TRA

EG

ER

RD

MA

LLA

LA R

D

PENFIELD RD

REDBANKS RD

W

OMMA RD

GAWLER RD

ANGLE VALE RD

HEAS

LIP

RD

MALLALA COUNCIL

Policy Area Map Mal/1

10 0 km

Development Plan BoundaryPrecinct Boundary

Policy Area 3 Horticulture

3

3

Precinct 5 Southeast Horticulture

Policy Area Boundary

5




Summary and Response to Agency Submissions


Summary and Response to Agency Submissions

Sub No.

Agency name/Address/ Contact Person

Submission Summary Comment Council Response

1. Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Department of State Development GPO Box 2343, Adelaide SA 5001 Perry Langeberg, Senior Information Officer (Heritage) Reference: AHRCA17/14

The Central Archive, which includes the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects has entries for Aboriginal sites within the proposed development area. These entries are described as one historic, two scarred trees and two burial sites. In addition, sites or objects may exist in the proposed development area, even though the Register does not identify them. We seek to ensure that Aboriginal heritage is addressed within the DPA as part of our portfolio. We strongly recommend that you consider instigating a referral process for an Aboriginal heritage site search to be conducted by DSD-AAR for ground disturbing activities or major projects.

APC is already aware of the entries for Aboriginal sites in the Two Wells area, as indicated on the enclosed map, as a result of previous searches of the Register. The DPA cannot instigate a referral process. Referrals are mandated via the Development Regulations. The DPA does not propose any policy amendments which will directly impact upon the locations of the identified Aboriginal sites. The DPA proposes no ground disturbing activities or major projects which would instigate the need for a referral for an Aboriginal heritage site search to be completed. Development will still need to comply with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 were applicable.

No amendment to the DPA required to address comments from Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

2. Renewal SA GPO Box 698, Adelaide SA 5001 John Rushworth, Senior Urban Planner [email protected]

RSA Supports the intent of the DPA and has no specific comments.

No action required No action required


mailto:[email protected]

Sub No.



3. Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607, Adelaide SA 5001 Kym Pryde, Principal Adviser, Planning Policy and Projects Reference: EPA 158-137

1. Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) It is not entirely clear from the DPA investigations what sites are identified to be rezoned, along with the justification to rezone these site-specific allotments. Both proposed UEZs are adjacent to industrial uses and EPA licenced activities. The proposed UEZs include policy which encourages further development of industries (including food processing and manufacturing) but also contemplates more sensitive land uses (underlined) such as in Zone Objective 2, which states:- “Local activity centres, which include a range of activities including shops, consulting rooms, personal service establishments, child care and training facilities that provide support services for businesses and an expanding workforce.” The EPA has some concern with more sensitive land uses undermining the successful operation of the surrounding Primary Production Zone which encourages land uses such as general food processing and manufacturing. Envisaging sensitive receivers within the proposed land to be rezoned would likely create interface issues and expose users to potential health issues. The EPA recommends that more sensitive land uses be discouraged from the new zone. 2. Interface Between Land Uses - Noise The proposed DPA would change how the

1. Urban Employment Zone (UEZ) In the SAPPL based Urban Employment Zone (UEZ), a range of industrial land uses together with other related employment and business activities are envisaged in the zone. Although Council has sought to avoid making too many local amendments to the UEZ policy provisions, it is acknowledged that the inclusion of support services to industry and business uses such as those listed under Objective 2 as a local activity centre, could cause interface issues with the industrial land uses envisaged in the zone and already existing on adjacent blocks. Council is keen for the UEZ to support industrial and business uses that focus on food processing, packing and manufacturing. Council is therefore supportive of changes to the UEZ SAPPL policy provisions which will ensure that the new zone is focused on industry and similar value-add activities that support the growth of irrigated horticulture and agriculture across the district, without detrimentally impacting upon existing industry zones. 2. Interface Between Land Uses - Noise

1. Due to concerns regarding some of the uses envisaged within local activity centres and potential conflict with the industrial intent of the UEZ, it is recommended that Objective 2 is deleted from the Urban Employment Zone. 2. As a consequence of the proposed amendments to the


Sub No.



Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 would be applied during the assessment of future development applications and compliance for development located within the proposed UEZ and those developments located within close proximity to these areas. The Primary Production Zone allows for a higher level of noise than the proposed UEZ and this means that the proposed rezoning would create stricter (quieter) noise compliance levels for existing industry in the new zone. Some existing industries may have issues complying with the stricter noise compliance levels, including current EPA licenced sites at Carslake Road, Dublin and Road Train Drive, Two Wells. 3. Site Contamination As the DPA is proposing to introduce the Urban Employment Zone to replace some small portions of the Primary Production Zone, the EPA notes that the new zoning envisages development which may comprise more sensitive land uses than currently exists (i.e. industry to commercial). The EPA therefore supports the use of the updated site contamination Hazards module as proposed by the DPA.

The UEZ is not listed as a specific zone category within the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007. It is intended that the UEZ is a focus for industrial and business uses that focus on food processing, packing and manufacturing. As a consequence, the envisaged land uses in the UEZ are more likely to fall into the General Industry or Commercial land use categories as specified in the Noise EPP. Removal of more sensitive uses currently outlined in the UEZ SAPPL would minimise the issues for noise compliance by existing adjacent industrial uses. 3. Site Contamination Council acknowledges the advice from the EPA on ensuring that site contamination issues are dealt with on development proposed within the new UEZs.

Urban Employment Zone outlined in (1.) above to remove more sensitive land uses from the list of uses envisaged in the zone, no further action is required. 3. No action required

4. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR 205 Greenhill Road, Eastwood, SA 5063 Piers Brissenden, Manager Parks and Sustainable Landscapes

1. Flooding The inclusion of updated flood mapping for the Gawler River and new flood mapping for the Light River, including the use of three hazard categories is supported. In places the DPA refers to floodplain mapping for

1. Flooding The updated flood mapping for the Gawler River is from 2015 and any erroneous references to the 2008 mapping will be corrected. The hazard mapping categories set

1. The DPA will be reviewed to ensure that the correct mapping for the Gawler River is referenced. No changes to the Gawler River or Light River flood mapping will be


Sub No.



Reference: F0000177632

the Gawler River prepared in 2008. The latest 2015 mapping should be used. The hazard categories used in the analysis section are based on Floodplain Management in Australia – Best Practice Principles and Guidelines (SCARM, 2000). This guideline has now been superseded. Updated hazard categories are found in Guideline 7-3 (published 2017). It is suggested that hazard categories are updated to the latest guidelines and the hazard mapping be revised accordingly. This is likely to require some spatial reprocessing of the flood map source data. It is acknowledged that that DPA includes provisions for development to consider evacuation routes, including all-weather vehicle access which is supported. Natural flooding behaviour creates several flood free islands across the floodplain. These areas could be designated as low risk rather than no risk to reflect the access-related flood risk on these flood free islands. Flood mapping shows that much of the Development Plan area is an overland flow path for flooding from the Gawler and Light Rivers. There is a risk that without appropriate development controls, development may impact on the conveyance of floodwaters across the floodplain. Consideration should be given to seeking engineering advice to review the high flood hazard areas and whether these sufficiently represent critical overland flow paths or need to be expanded.

out in SCARM (2000) were the categories that were in place when the latest mapping updates were undertaken. The hazard categories in the latest flood guidelines (published in 2017) build upon the categories in SCARM and the background studies to the latest guidelines confirm that the general concepts for quantifying and classifying flood hazard in SCARM remain sound (Smith, 2014 – Flood Hazard, Technical Report 2014/07). The thresholds set for the flood hazard categories in the 2015 Gawler River mapping update therefore remain relevant. A number of planned flood mitigation works along the Gawler River by the GRFMA and the requirements of the current DPA timetable mean make it impractical and unfeasible to undertake any further updates to the flood mapping at this time. The flood mapping for the Gawler and Light Rivers was undertaken by Australian Water Environments (AWE), which has provided a high level of engineering expertise in preparing flood mapping for APC. The flood mapping is as up-to-date and accurate as it is currently possible to achieve. The flood

made.


Sub No.



Issues of Concern • Light River flood mapping extent on the north

western boundary shows that flood waters are expected to extend outside the flood mapping extent. It is recommended that Council consider inclusions to address this aspect of flood risk.

• The DPA makes specific reference to Gawler and Light River flooding. DEWNR questions whether flood risk from local flooding or Salt Creek will be adequately covered by development controls.

• DEWNR has concerns around expanding greenhouse development and its impacts on flooding will be managed. Playford Council have advised that many greenhouses are erected without development approval.

mapping has been supported in the ERD Court as being appropriate for Council to rely upon when undertaking the assessment of development within the floodplain. Individual hydrological engineering reports are required for built developments in the floodplain, which guide more detailed development control measures on a case by case basis during the development assessment process. Issues of Concern • The Light River flood mapping

shown in the DPA shows the full extent of mapping and no other flood mapping is currently available.

• Local flooding issues are dealt with by stormwater management controls. Flooding from Salt Creek is included within the combined Gawler and Light River flood mapping.

• APC successfully manages its existing horticulture policy area and the challenges that come with greenhouse developments in a floodplain through a range of development control measures. APC takes a strong line on compliance within the horticulture policy area and does


Sub No.



2. Water Allocation Planning The area covered by the DPA includes part of the Northern Adelaide Plains Prescribed Wells Area (NAP PWA) where the provisions of the current Northern Adelaide Plains Water Allocation Plan (WAP). As the DPA aims to accommodate the proposed NAIS, the provisions of the WAP in regard to the use of effluent may be particularly useful. Other provisions regarding the taking of additional water from the Quaternary aquifers, for regulating the ability to transfer water allocations, and for conducting water-affecting activities, including the drilling of wells. 3. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) The Two Wells Stormwater Management Plan (2017) is directly relevant to the scope of this DPA. The relevant Development Control reviews and considerations in the SMP should be included in the DPA. Several of them are likely to impact on development in the AMLR region and may reduce the severity of flood impacts associated with urban infill development and improve water quality in the receiving waters. To support the focus on flood hazard in this area, Council should include WSUD measures and maximise reuse requirements for development in the Council area. Development should aim to meet the targets and principles set out in the policy

not have the same level of problems that neighbouring Councils do in relation to unauthorised greenhouse developments.

2. Water Allocation Planning. There is sufficient existing General Section Development Plan policy to address this issue (e.g. policies under the heading of “Environment Protection”, “Maintenance of Public Access”, and “Flooding”. 3. Water Sensitive Urban Design The Two Wells Stormwater Management Plan has not yet been approved by the Stormwater Management Authority. The draft stormwater plan provisions largely affect zones which are not included in the scope of the current DPA. It is suggested that the provisions are included in a future amendment to the Development Plan (likely to be via the new Planning and Design Code) when the stormwater provisions have been finalised. The current SAPPL Natural

2. No action required. 3. No action required


Sub No.



document – Water Sensitive Urban Design – Creating more liveable and water sensitive cities in South Australia (SA Gov., 2013). Impacts from greenhouse developments from the increase in impermeable surfaces should be considered in the DPA, as this development has the potential to increase the risk of downstream flood impacts. Mitigation measures to ensure capture and reuse of stormwater from greenhouse development should be required. 4. Coastal The Plan and maps within the DPA should be adjusted to include the boundaries of the Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park together with relevant policy provisions in relation to minimising land based impacts to the marine environment. It may be pertinent , given flood risks, to increase the provisions for storage containment of chemical and hazardous materials to specify measures to better safeguard containment to safeguard against flood impacts and loss of chemicals to the environment. The proposed fencing restrictions within flood areas

Resources module includes planning policy provisions on water sensitive design and restrictions on development that results in unsustainable use of surface or underground water resources. This module also sets out provisions to capture and reuse stormwater on site and for developments to include stormwater management systems for damage protection during a 1-in-100 year ARI flood event. A stormwater management plan is required for all greenhouse developments in the Council area which will demonstrate how stormwater from the greenhouses will be managed. 4. Coastal Mapping requirements will be agreed with DPTI prior to submission of the DPA for approval. Changes to mapping in relation to the Marine Park Sanctuary Zone is beyond the scope of this DPA. Policy provisions for the containment of chemical and hazardous materials are included within the Hazards Module of SAPPL and specifically refer to the potential for water contamination.

4. No action required.


Sub No.



should not impact NRM works as the AMLR region preferentially uses post and wire, not mesh. An EPBC referral may be required for development proposed in locations where temperate saltmarsh exists. 5. Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity The ALMR region, in general, supports the proposed changes to the APC Development Plan. The region recommends the following changes to the proposed Urban Employment Zone Desired Character Statement :- “Landscaping will be carefully integrated with built form including car parking and outdoor storage areas, ensuring that vegetation is sustainable, drought tolerant, locally indigenous and matched to the scale of development, while also providing a comfortable, pleasant and attractive environment…The extent of native vegetation in the zone is limited and its retention, whether in areas or as scattered trees, is a high priority. Where practical, the existing native vegetation will be incorporated into a development design. Landscaping will otherwise be matched to site conditions and the scale of the development, and ideally coupled with Water Sensitive Urban Design systems (e.g. swales or permeable paving), to provide evaporative cooling and shading, stormwater retention and/or detention and treatment, habitat or other desired functions, while also providing an attractive and pleasant environment. Car parking areas will include trees to

Post and wire fencing is proposed to be maintained in medium and high flood hazard risk areas, with the 100mm mesh size also being required in low flood hazard risk areas up to the maximum height of a 1-in-100 ARI flood. 5. Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Some of the suggested rewording will be incorporated in the updated Desired Character Statement.

5. Updated Desired Character Statement


Sub No.



provide shade and enhance visual amenity and the appearance of outdoor storage areas will also be enhanced through landscaping.“ The AMLR region also recommends the inclusion of the following Principle of Development Control in support of the UEZ Desired Character Statement: “A minimum of one medium to large tree capable of providing summer shade should be provided per 8 car parking bays within off street vehicle parking areas.” 6. Regional Planning As APC is in the Northern Coast and Plains subregion, the DPA should consider and align with the subregion’s key priorities detailed in the Regional NRM Plan.

6. Regional Planning It is considered that the wider development control provisions within Council’s Development Plan adequately align with NRM Plan priorities, where these are directly relevant and able to be controlled under the planning system.

6. No action required.

4. APA Group PO Box 885 Hamilton Central Queensland 4007 Ashutosh Parekh, Acting Manager – Asset Inspection and Protection [email protected]

APA group has no transmission lines in the affected area but we do have two distribution pipelines in the area – one from the Virginia Gate station to Two Wells and the second supplies Como Glasshouse (see attached maps). When developing the propose area, due consideration must be given to the proximity of the development in relation to our lines.

Comments noted. No action required

5. PIRSA Level 16, 25 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000 Bengy Paolo, Director – Major Programs

1. Noting the major investment committed by the SA and Australian Governments in the NAIS, we are keen to see that the types of water-dependent primary production made possible by the Scheme are enabled and supported by appropriate land use policy e.g. intensive animal keeping and land-based

1. Comments noted. Currently, intensive animal keeping is a merit land use if proposed outside of the Horticulture Policy Area and outside of Flood Hazard Zone 3. Council agrees that land-based inland

1. Land-based inland aquaculture and poultry broiler sheds / hatchery will be listed as exceptions to the Non-Complying Development list for Intensive Animal Keeping in the Horticulture



Sub No.



Reference: A3354050

aquaculture. Related to this, we believe it is important that forms and patterns of development that may compromise those key economic development and associated outcomes are appropriately controlled. Interface issues arising from land use changes driven by the NAIS must be anticipated and managed so that existing farm businesses are not subject to unforeseen impacts. 2. Interface Module: PDC 21 may not be sufficient to deal with known land use conflict scenarios. More targeted information may be necessary.

aquaculture and poultry broiler sheds / hatchery could be listed as exceptions to the Non-Complying Development list for Intensive Animal Keeping within the proposed Horticulture Policy Area. The poultry industry is a significant investment in the region. The siting and management of intensive animal keeping associated with poultry are presently guided by Council wide Development Plan policies, EPA policies and when required, by EPA License agreements. Council wide policies within the Animal Keeping module also provides guidelines for the location of land based aquaculture within the Council area. No further exceptions are considered appropriate to the non-complying list as the smaller lot sizes and greater number of caretaker residences in the Horticulture Policy Area supports the need for restrictions to intensive animal keeping compared with outside of the Horticulture Policy Area. 2. PIRSA’s comments are acknowledged. However, there is sufficient policy within the Development Plan to address this

Policy Area. 2. No action required.


Sub No.



3. Primary Production Zone: The Desired Character Statements should better contextualise the NAIS project and the implications of its water supply. The intent of Land Division PDC 19 (c) is supported but the statement itself appears impractical. 4. Constraints on greenhouse development in flood hazard zones should be reviewed. Consideration should be given to allowing engineered solutions that require site modification on parts of flood prone sites to enable those major greenhouse investments to occur.

issue at the assessment period. Introducing targets that apply uniformly across the Zone may result in several unintended consequences. 3. The Desired Character statements refer to areas which will not necessarily be served by NAIS and it is therefore appropriate to retain more generalised references in relation to water supply etc. No wording changes are considered necessary to PDC 19. 4. Council does not consider that enclosed horticulture structures should be a merit form of development within High Flood Hazard Risk Areas. This approach is consistent with how built structures are assessed in relation to flooding in other Development Plan zones and ensures that development is restricted in those areas with the highest level of flood risk, which can be up to 5 m high in some areas (in a 1-in-100 ARI flood event). An applicant is still able to pursue a greenhouse development within a High Flood Hazard Risk Area with an appropriate engineering solution through the non-complying application process.

3. No action required. 4. No action required


Sub No.



5. Policies regarding land division and dwelling construction appear broadly suitable. However consideration might be given to measures to ensure demand for accommodation arising from NAIS-related jobs does not lead to land division and dwelling construction pressures that compromise site assembly for new investments or spill into the wider farming landscapes. 6. The DPA makes very limited use of complying development status. We believe consideration should be given to wider use and/or more creative deployment of this status. 7. There is some inconsistency of terminology relating to greenhouse development. 8. Public notification arrangements are unclear and should be clarified.

5. The EFPA prohibits the construction of dwellings on new sub-divisions and the DPA will need to reflect this position. Applications for short term workers’ accommodation will be assessed in accordance with the Development Plan. 6. Following discussions with DPTI, Council is removing the complying development status for some forms of horticulture development as the conditions proposed cannot be removed or sufficiently quantified without compromising the development assessment process for new horticulture developments. This is an area that could be revisited as part of the new Planning and Design Code. 7. Comments noted. The DPA will be amended to ensure better consistency of terminology in reference to greenhouse developments. 8. Council considers that the public notification arrangements for horticulture development are clear. All horticulture development is Category 2 apart from that which has almost no potential impact on neighbouring allotments (i.e. no

5. No action required. 6. Complying development standards for greenhouses to be deleted. 7. Minor amendments to the terminology of greenhouse developments throughout the DPA will be made to ensure consistency. 8. No action required


Sub No.



9. An annotated copy of the DPA in electronic format contains more policy specific comments.

dams, audible bird scaring devices, frost fans, or planting within 300 metres of a dwelling unrelated to the use of the subject land). 9. Electronic Comments noted

9. Make minor changes where required.

6. SA Water 250 Victoria Square, Adelaide SA 5000 Daniel Hoefel, Senior Manager, Water Expertise [email protected]

1. Early adoption of the DPA is critically importance to facilitate the intended economic outcomes of the NAIS. 2. Clarification on water quantity, quality and the proposed delivery timetable for the NAIS is provided in the submission – DPA should be updated to reflect this as appropriate. 3. SA Water considers that Council may wish to review the boundary between the proposed Horticulture Policy Area and the existing Coastal Conservation Policy Area. SA Water does not wish to challenge the status of land that has high conservation value. However, any flat, saline land that has low conservation values and is unsuitable for field-based or broadacre primary production may be ideal for advanced agribusinesses. Soil salinity is not relevant for facilities which are no soil based. If the land does not need to be included in the Coastal Conservation Policy Area for other reasons, the Council could consider including it in the Horticulture Policy Area.

1. Council is committed to meeting the timetable deadlines as set out in the DPA Statement of Intent. 2. The DPA will be amended to ensure accuracy when referring to the NAIS in the Explanatory Statement. 3. Council does not intend to review the boundaries of the Coastal Conservation Zone as part of the current DPA. Such a review would require the conservation value of the land included in the existing zone to be investigation in partnership with relevant government agencies and conservation groups. This is outside the scope of the current DPA. Non-complying applications for land uses not envisaged within a zone can still be pursued if appropriate justification is provided. There will be opportunities to review the current zone boundaries within the Council area during the

1. No action required. 2. Minor amendments to DPA Explanatory Statement to ensure accurate references to NAIS. 3. No action required.



Sub No.



4. SA Water undertakes water security and infrastructure planning that considers the longer term strategic direction for a system. The future re-zoning and land development set out in the DPA will be incorporated into SA Water’s planning process. 5. New developments should have no deleterious effects on the quality or quantity of source water or the natural environments that reply on this water. Specific conditions are set out in the submission. 6. All applications for connections needing an extension to SA Water’s water/wastewater networks will be assessed on their individual commercial merits. 7. Information on trade waste discharge agreements is provided.

development of the new Planning and Design Code. 4. Comments Noted. 5. The requirement for new development to preserve existing water quality is set out in the existing Council Wide development policies under the SAPPL Natural Resources module. 6. Comments noted. 7. Comments noted.

4. No action required 5. No action required. 6. No action required. 7. No action required.

5. Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) Level 5, 50 Flinders Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Andrew Humby, Unit Manager – Development Plans [email protected]

1. The Department holds significant concerns in relation to the proposed policy approach which will enable the development of dwellings within key horticultural/agricultural areas to be considered on merit. Dwellings are widely recognised as an impediment to horticultural activities due to the interface conflicts they can create. This is of particular concern given the level of government investment in infrastructure within the area.

1. The proposed policies do not provide dwellings to be constructed as of right in the Policy Area. For instance: Zone PDC 1, does not list a dwelling as an envisaged land use. Zone PDC 5 states “A dwelling should only be developed if: (a)

1. The DPA will be amended to include a ‘dwelling’ as a non-complying form of development for allotments created after 1 April 2017 to ensure consistency with the EFPA. An exception will be included to allow for the assessment of a caretaker / manager’s residence for an existing horticulture development



Sub No.



2. Furthermore, the affected are is located within

there is an existing demonstrated connection with farming or other primary production on the allotment” The Horticulture Policy Area Desired Character statement notes: “A threat to the long-term economic viability of the policy area is the conversion of horticultural land to residential/rural living activities. These activities are incompatible with horticulture production (e.g. due to noise, spray drift etc.) and often raise the cost of production for those remaining” Despite the above, Council understands the need for the DPA to be consistent with the intent of the EFPA and will therefore amend the DPA policy in relation to dwellings on newly sub-divided allotments within Horticulture Policy Area 3 to a non-complying classification. An exception will be included to allow for the assessment of a caretaker / manager’s residence for an existing horticulture development to be processed as a merit application – independent legal advice has been provided to justify this position. 2. As stated above, the DPA will be

to be processed as a merit application. 2. Refer to above comments.


Sub No.



the Environment and Food Production Areas (EFPA) which does not support residential development. This has been operational since 1 April 2017 and includes the requirement that development creating additional allotments for residential development must be refused. The Department considers that the DPA is not consistent with this State position and it is not appropriate for dwellings to be listed as a merit form of development within the Horticulture Policy Area should an allotment be created after 1 April 2017. The DPA should therefore be amended to reflect the intent of the EFPA with a revised non-complying position. 3. Council is advised that significant amendments will be required to mapping to ensure it is suitable for final approval. Council should note that the flooding data received and mapped by the Department in February 2014 creates a different view of flood hazards than is provided in the DPA. 4. Council should be aware that any policy affected by the DPA will need to be revisited as part of the transition to the new Planning and Design Code. 5. Council has committed to completing the DPA by December 2017. Council should be aware that, should the DPA experience delays, the DPA may not be finalised and instead the rezoning may be completed as part of transitioning Council’s Development Plan to the Code.

amended to reflect the intent of the EFPA with a revised non-complying position for new dwellings on sub-divided allotments within Horticulture Policy Area 3. 3. The latest flood mapping available and mapped as part of the DPA dates from September 2015 so there will be some changes to the flood data that the Department has previously received from Council. 4. Council is proposing to be fully engaged in the transition process to the new Code, following completion of the current DPA. 5. Council is aware of the SOI timeframes in place and is committed to ensuring that the December 2017 deadline is met.

3. Flood mapping and base maps will be reviewed. Council will work with DPTI to make the required amendments to the DPA mapping to ensure they are suitable for final approval. 4. No action required 5. No action required


Sub No.



6. Information on the requirements for the DPA approval package to the Minister are set out in the submission, as well as procedural requirements for the final stages of the DPA process. 7. Proposed policy specific amendments are set out in the table attachment to the submission. This includes proposed rewording of a number of policies, such as including reference to the EFPA in the Desired Character Statement of the Primary Production Zone. 8. In the Primary Production Zone, it is recommended that conditions (c), (d) and (f) relating to complying development for horticulture developments are either deleted or reworded as they are currently not quantifiable and can’t be complying development conditions.

6. The procedural requirements for completing the DPA process are noted. 7. Unless otherwise stated, the proposed amendments set out by DPTI will be made to the DPA as recommended. 8. The conditions within the new Complying Development Table under the Primary Production Zone cannot be removed or sufficiently quantified without compromising the development assessment process for new horticulture developments. In discussions with DPTI, APC has determined that it is preferable to delete the new Complying Development Table in its entirety, which will result in the majority of horticulture developments being assessed on merit.

6. No action required 7. In relation to the policy specific amendments set out in the table attachment to DPTI’s submission, the DPA will be amended to reflect the recommended changes. 8. The Complying Development Table under the Primary Production Zone will be removed.




Government Agency Written Comments Received


Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment {DPAI

List of Agency Submlsslons

Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

Environment Protection Authority

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM

APA Group

Department of Planning Transport and

Infrastructure (DPTI)


PhFlcal ld. AHncAlTIxl3U 7Ftts No. AHROrtzl4

Megan Lewis

Planning OfficerAdelaide Plains Council

PO Box 18

Mallala 5A 5502

Dear Megan

Govemmentof South Australla

Department ofState DeveloPment

Thank you for your correspondence (email) dated 28 August 2017, regarding the Northern Foodrtanman? Dt.n arrrandrnahi Tha qoarrh was based on Two Wells. outlingd

as the Affected Area on page I ofthe DPA document.

I advise that the Central Archive, which includes the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects (the

Register), administered by the Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and

Reconciliation (DSD-AAR), has entries for Aboriginal sites within the proposed development area.

These entries for Aboriginal sites are described as one historic, two scarred tree and two burial sites.

The enclosed map identifies the approximate site locations. lt should be noted however that the site

indicator does not reflect the actual area ofthe site; as this will vary from site to site, depending on

the site information contained in the Central Archive.

The applicant is advised that sites or objects may exist in the proposed development area, even

though the Register does not identifo them. All Aboriginal sites and objects are protected under the

Aboriginol Heritdge Act 1"988 (the Act), whether they are listed in the Register or not. Land within

Z0O metres of a watercourse (for example the River Murray and its overflow areas) in particular,

may contain Aboriginal sites and objects.

We seek to ensure that Aboriginal heritage is addressed within the Northern Food Bowl Protection

Areas Development Plan Amendment as part of our portfolio. Information provided to you is for

Council use only and not to be displayed on your website for public viewing as per the terms and

conditions below. We do not wish to be heard in relation to this submission at a public meeting

however, if at anytime you require assistance In relation to the understanding of the Act, a member

of the Aboriginal Heritage Team will be more than happy to discuss this with you.

We strongly recommend that you consider instigating a referral process for an Aboriginal heritage

site search to be conducted by DSD-MR for ground disturbing activities or major projects. The usual

turnaround time for requests is currently two weeks and can be requested through our generic

email address listed below,

pursuant to the Act, it is an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site, object

or remains (registered or not) without the authority of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and

Reconciliation (the Minister). lf the planned activity is likely to damage, disturb or interfere with a

site, object or remains, authorisation of the activity must be first obtained from the Minister under

Section 23 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act requires that any Aboriginal sites, objects or

remains, discovered on the land, need to be reported to the Minister' Penalties apply for

failure to comply with the Act.

Aborlglnal Aftalrs and Reconciliation

Level t 11 wavmouth Street I GPo Box 320 Adelaide 5A 5001

rel (+61) 08 8226 8900 | Fax (+61) Og 8226 8999 | www.statedevelopment.sa.go\'.au I ABN 83 524 915 929

CI5qVTry


It should be noted that this Aboriginal heritage advice has not addressed any relevantobligations pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993. Gov€mment

of South Au ralla

Please be aware in this area there are various Aboriginal groups/organisations/traditional D.""*""-fowners that may have an interest, these may include: StateDevelopment

KAURNA NAiION CULTURAT HERTTAGE ASSOCIAiION INC

Chairperson: Jeffrey NewchurchPostafAddress: 4l4SwiftStreet NORTHFIELDSAS0SS

Moblle:Emall:

0458973 692ieff [email protected]

Terms and conditions for use of Informadon derlved from the central archlve:. Informatlon derived from the central archive may not be re-utilised and/or copied (whetherelectronic or hard copy format) for any commercial or buslness purpose including but not limited to,trading, building commercial databases, reselling or redlstribution of such information.

. The reproduction, copying downloading storage, recording broadcasting, retransmission,distribution, decompilatlon, or disassembly of any part of the information derived from the centralarchive is not permitted without priorwrftten consent from the traditional informant and must be inaccordance with any associated copyright.

. lt is the responsibility of any person provided with information derived from the centralarchive to:o Ensure that the information accessed is not made available, either in electronic or in hard copyformat, to any third party.

o Inform DSD-MR immediately if they become aware of a third party using information derived forthe central archive in contraventlon to these terms and conditions.

lf you require further information, please contact the Aboriginal Heritage Team on telephone (08)8225 8900 or send to our generic email address [email protected]

Yours sincerely

/44Perry LangebergsENIOR INFORMATION OFFICER (HERITAGE)

ABORIGINAT AFFAIRS & RECONCIUANON

21 September 2017

Aborlginal Attalrs and Reconclllatlon

LevelT, ll Waymouth Street I GPO Box 320 Adelaide 5A 5001

Tel {+61) 08 8226 8900 I Fax (+61) 08 8226 8999 | www.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au I ABN 83 524 915 929

50t r!4


FromrSent:To:Subjsct:

Megan

Rushforth, John (Renewal SA) [email protected], 26 September 2017 10:4'l AMMegan LewisNorthern Food Bovyl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation -25.08.17

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. RSA supports the intent of DPA and has no specific comments.

Regards

John

Senior Urban PlannerProject DeliveryP:088207 O212F: 08 8207 [email protected]. renewalsa.ga.qov.au

!ttltrtt\\tt\l\\ l!!t

ttl!tt!t.|It! \! \

It'l! ^/.rt a.N,

rr. qt,._:i\8,/GovscnmentSouth Aurtroll€

RenewalSApeople partrerships Progress

This e-mail may conlain confdential which may be privileged. Only the iniended recipient(s) may access dse distribute or copy

this e-mail. lf this e-mail is receivad in error please inform the sender by retum e-mail and delete the originai lt is the recipient's responsibilily to

check the e-mail and any attached files for viruses. In order to comply with R€newat SA's siatutor' obligalions, e- rlail messages sent by Rene''.'al

SA may be monitored or accessed by Renewal SA staff other than the senderThink before you print - considar the environment

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please visit http://www's)'manteccloud'com


///4

Environment Protection Authority

www.epa.sa.gov.au

EPA 158-137

Mr James Miller

Chief Executive Officer

Adelaide PlainsCouncil

PO Box l8MALLALA SA 5502

tSouth Auet.alia

GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001

250 Victoria Square Adelside SA

T (08) 8204 2000 F (08) 8204 2o2o

Counlry areas 1800 623 445

Dear Mr Miller

Adelaide plains Council- Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment

Thank you for providing the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) with the opportunity to comment on

the Adelaide Piains Council Northem Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment (DPA).

When reviewing documents such as this DPA, the key interest of the EPA is to ensure that all

environmental issues within the scope of the objects of the Environment Protection Act 1993 are

identified and considered. The EPA is primarily interested in the potential environmental and human

health impacts that would result from any development that may be proposed subsequent to this DPA. At

the DpA stage, the EPA works to ensure that appropriate planning policy is included in the development

plan to allow proper assessment at the development application stage.

It is understood that the main objective of the DPA is to enable primary production and horticulture

g rowth on the Northern Adelaide Plains, whilst protecting South Australia's. primary food production

legion from urban encroachment. The State Government, through its Northern Economic Plan has

idJntified that the horticulture and its associated food processing and distribution industries play a pivotal

role in supporting the econornic prosperity of South Australia in general. The EPA acknowledges the

Adelaide Fiains Councit plays an important part in this region, with predominant land uses comprising

agriculture including farmlng, grazing, and intensive animal keeping. From a review, it would appear that

the DPA principally seeks to:

r facilitate future employment growth within the council north of the Gawler River;

o provide policy fram ework to support the growth of horticultural activities and allied services;

. introduce complying development into the Primary Production Zone; and

o include new flood hazard mapping into the Development Plan to ensure a risk based approach is

administered when determining new development proposals by having comprehensive and up-

dated information for land subject to flood inundation

In order to achieve the policy outcomes, it is further understood that the DPA proposes to:

. uodate the 'Hazards' and 'lnterface between Land Uses' policies to align with the South

Australian planning Policy Library (SAPPL) - Version 6 including local content to manage

potential interface conflict between different primary industry activities;. replace the existing Primary Production Zone polices to align with the SAPPL version 6 policies;

ando introduce the Urban Employment Zone from the SAPPL with some local variations and re-zone a

limited number of allotments currently located in the Primary Production Zone to the Urban

Employment Zone (although the specific sites are not clearly identified)

The EpA aims to ensure that the DPA would provide for the effective management of air and noise

emissions across interfaces between activities and sensitive environments within the Adelaide Plains

Council so that communities are adeguately protected from these impacts.


Furtpr information is includ€d in the Athotmcnt t,

Yours'slnconely

lvn Pnde

PRINCIPAL ADVISER, PI-A}INING POUCY AND PR(UECTS

PLAil}IIIIO A{D ITPACT AssE8€I[ENT

El{vrRoNilEilT PFOTECTTON AUTHORTTV

Date: 5 O.dobet 2tll7


ATTACHMENT 1

URBAN EMPLOYMENT ZONE

The DpA proposes to re-zone several parcels of land from Primary Production Zone to the new Urban

Employment Zone. lt is not entirely clear from the DPA investigations what sites are identified to be

rezoned along with the justification to rezone these site-specific allotments.

The EpA has undertaken a review of the proposed Development Plan mapping and understands that

there are two locations; Middle Beach and Dublin where the Urban Employment Zone is proposed to

apply. While the individual sites and allotments have not been identified in the DPA, the EPA and has

proposed zone oi within close proximity. To provide clarity, the EPA has listed all of the sites it considers

are-affected from the mapping provided in the DPA for each location below.

Middle Beach site

Allotmentnumber

Certificate of Title Street address Suburb

'Site 1 5696/332 3341A Port WakefieldHiqhwav

MiddleBeach

'Site 2' 5405/564 90 Middle Beach Road MiddleBeach

The Middle Beach location includes two parcels of land which are directly opposite an industrial park

development. This development comprises a licenced activity (EPA licence no. 12056) on land at

Allotment 15, Road Train Road, Two Wells. The licenced activities include:

. Scrap metal recovery worksr Waste recycling depot (waste for resource recovery or transfer). Recycling depot (battery recycling only)

The current licence allows for the crushing of metal. The EPA's 'Evaluation distances for effective air

quality and noise management' guideline (available -"J

http;//www.epa. sa.oov.au/files/12193 eval distances.odf) recommends. a separation distance of 500

metres from sensttive lanJ receiu.rs. This would rnean that new developments within the Urban

Employment Zone comprising more sensitive receivers may be located within the 500 metres evaluation

distance from this existing licenced activity.

The EpA understands that the adjoining Primary Production Zone to the north and west and the

adjoining Industry Zone to the south east features existing land uses such as industry that can create

environriental impacts including noise, vibration, air quality, odour, dust' The proposed Urban

imployment Zone includes policy which encourages further development of industries (including food

pro."r"ing and manufacturing) Uut also contemplites rnore sensitive land uses (underlined) such as in

Zone Objective 2 which states -

"Local activity centres, which include a range of activities including shoos. consultinq rcom-s.

personal seiice establishments. child care aid training facilities that provide support services for

businesses and an expanding workforce."

Given the small geographic nature of the proposed new zone at Middle Beach, having these sites

intersDersed with more sensitive land uses (such as child care centres for example) has the potential to

expose people (and more vulnerable people) to undesirable health and amenity impacts.

Furthermore, the EpA has some concern with more sensitive land uses undermining the successful

operation of the sunounding Primary Production Zone which encourages land uses such as general food


processing and manufacturing or similarly the adjacent Industry Zone. While it is understood that theintent is to ensure that these more sensitive land uses do not prejudice the existing operations of thoseindustries, envisaging sensitive receivers within the proposed land to be rezoned in Middle Beach wouldlikely create interface issues and expose users to potential health issues. The EPA recommends thatmore sensitive land uses be discouraged from the new Zone.

Dublin site

Allotmentnumoer

Certificate of Title Street address Suburb

Site 1 11 5452t708 Carslake Road DublinSite 2 12 58351278 219 Carslake Road DublinSite 3 13 583st279 219 Carslake Road DublinSite 4 14 5506/104 219 Carslake Road DublinSite 5 ,IE 5506/105 219 Carslake Road DublinSite 6 2 6028/83 515 Shannon Road DublinSite 7 5114t976 393 Carslake Road DublinSite I 4 5104t978 538 Shannon Road DublinSite 9 5101/663 415 Carslake Road DublinSite 10 99 5241t2 477 Carslake Road DublinSite 11 100 6162i359 495 Carslake Road Dublin

The Dublin location includes four parcels of land which comprises a licenced activity; namely 219Carslake Road, Dublin (CTs 5506i104 and 5506/105 and CTs 5835/278 and 5835/279) known as theDublin Livestock Exchange. The licenced activities include:

o Waste recycling depot (waste for resource recovery or transfer). Saleyards. Composting works

The current licence allows for composting works and the operation exceeds 2,000 tonnes per year. TheEPA's 'Evaluation distances for effective air quality and noise management' guideline (available athttp.//wvwv. epa. sa.qov. au/files/12193 eval distances.pdf) recommends a separation distance of 1,000metres from sensitive land receivers. This would mean that new developments comprising moresensitive uses may not be suitable for location up to 1,000 metres from this activity. Consequently, manyof the parcels of land proposed to be rezoned to Urban Employment would be captured by this distance.

The proposed Urban Employment Zone includes policy which encourages further development ofindustries (including food processing and manufacturing) but also contemplates more sensitive land uses(underlined) such as in Zone Objective 2 which states -

"Local activ@ centres, which include a range of activities including shops. consultinq rooms.personal service establishments. child care and training facilities that provide support services forbusrnesses and an expanding wot*force."

Given the relatively small geographic nature of the proposed new zone at Dublin, having these sitesinterspersed with more sensitive land uses (such as child care centres for example) has the potential toexpose people (and more vulnerable people) to undesirable health and amenity impacts.

Furthermore, the EPA has some concern with more sensitive land uses undermining the successfuloperation of the existing EPA licenced site and the surrounding Primary Production Zone whichencourages land uses such as general food processing and manufacturing. While il is understood thatthe intent is to ensure that these more sensitive land uses do not prejudice the existing operations ofthose industries, envisaging sensitive receivers within the proposed land to be rezoned in Dublin wouldlikely create interface issues and expose users to potential health issues. The EPA recommends thatmore sensitive land uses be discouraged from the new Zone.


INTERFACE BETWEEN LAND USES

It is noted that the DPA proposes to update the 'Hazards' module and 'lnterface between Land Uses'

module to align with the SAPPL version 6 and insertion of additional policy content to better manage

potential interface conflict between different primary industry activities. This is supported by the EPA.

Noise

The proposed DPA would change how the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP)

would be applied during the assessment of future development applications and compliance fordevelopment located within the proposed Urban Employment Zone areas and those developmentslocated within close proximity to these areas. This is due to the noise criteria identified in the Noise EPP

_ beino obtained fom,$e-zqnes$af-bgurthe noise affecling activity and noise affected oremises resldejn-The Noise EPP is based on development plan zoning. The Primary Production Zone allows for a higher

level of noise than the proposed Urban Employmenl Zone. The Urban Employment Zone principallypromotes a mix of commercial and light industrial land uses and has a noise level that is an average ofthose land uses. Due to the lower noise lirnit the commercial-type land uses envisaged in the new zone,

the average would be lower than if it was predominantly primary production development. This means

that the proposed rezoning would create a stricter (quieteQ noise compliance level for existing industry in

the new zone.

lf existing industries have already taken all reasonable and practicable measures to attenuate noise as

much as possible, and may only just be complying with the Noise Policy (cunently), such industries may

not be able to comply with the stricter noise compliance levels (in the future) without spending a

significant amount of money on new attenuation measures.

The EPA notes that this may have some impacts for the current EPA licenced sites at 219 Carslake

Road, Dubtin (CTs 5506/104 and 5506i105, CTs 5835/ 278 and 58351279) and allotment 15, Road Train

Road, Two Wells (CT 5951/184), both of which are currently located within the Primary Production Zone

and are proposed to be located within the new Urban Employment Zone'

SITE CONTAM]NATION

Council is reminded where there is evidence or suspicion of site contamination (i.e. through the presence

of a potentially contaminating activity), it is advisable that planning authorities include principles ofdevelopment control in the Development Plan that identify how the land might safely be developed and to

forewarn proponents of this. These principles may apply generally within the zone or to specific sites

depending on the situation and the availability of information'

As this DPA is proposing to introduce the Urban Employment Zone to replace some small portions of theprimary Production Zone, the EPA notes that the new zoning envisages development which may

comprise more sensitive land uses than what currently exists (i.e. industry to commercial). In this regard,

the EPA acknowledges and supports the use of the updated site contamination Hazards module (version

6 of the SAPPL) as proposed by the DPA.

Where site contamination has been identified or suspected, (the EPA Public Register (available from

wwr/v epa.sa-qov.au) can be searched to find information that the EPA holds when required during

assessment of development). Council is reminded that the following process should be to be adopted to

ensure that land is suitable for the proposed use:

. Where site contamination is known to exist or a PCA has been undertaken on the land and a'sensitive use' (as defined in section 3(1) of tne Envhonment Protection Act 1993) is proposed,

such as land uses envisaged for Urban Employment Zone use, the EPA specificallyrecommenos the use of a site contamination auditor accredited by the EPA as an appropriateperson to assess the suitability of the site for its intended use.

Otherwise where site contamination is known to exist or a potentially contaminating activity has

been undertaken on the land and a change to a 'non-sensitive' use is proposed, such as general

commercial or recreational use the EPA recommends the use of a suitably qualified site

contamination consultant as an appropriate person to assess the suitability of the site for itsintended use.


n- Xi:l:fr: ::'r"ilf i;'ty Rans es

NEtrral R6out!6 Cenfo

205 Greenhill Road

Eastwood SA 5053

DX 174 Adelaide

Tel 08 8273 9100Fax 08 8271 9585

dsrnr.amlr@sa. go\r.au

www.natu ralresourcssa. goviu/adelaiderndoftynnges

Reference: F000012632

Megan Lewis

Adelaide Plains CouncilPO Rov 'l R

MATIALA SA 5502

Dear Ms Lewis

Re: Adelalde Plalns Council - Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Dwetopment Plan

Amendment

Thankyou for providing theAdelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) Natural Resources Management

(NRM) Board and the Department of Environmen! Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) with the

opportunity to comment on the Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment

(DPA).

It is understood that the purpose of the draft DPA is to enable growth of major primary production

and horticulture areas on the Northern Adelaide Plains,while protecting South Australia's primary food

production area from urban encroachment. A number of associated policy changes relating to

flooding risk, ancillary industry growth and stormwater management and re-use are also included.

The DPA has been reviewed with the following comments provided for Council's consideration.

FloodlngThe Fire and Flood Management Unit (representing DEWNR s role as state flood hazard leader) has

reviewed the DPA and provided detailed comments with regard to flood risk - these are provided

below for your information.The Desired Character Statement notes:

"Portions of the zone are subject to inundotion by floodwoters from the Gowler River ond Light River. ltis atpected thot new development will not increose the potential for blockoge of floodwaters or olter flowpaths, will not remove arms of flood storage (through filling etc) and thereby impoct on locolised levels

ond flow paths ond will not inoease impervious areos thereby inteasing volume and peok runoff levels.

Buildings ond structurr will be located and designed to prevent entry by floodwoters."

It is apparent from this statement that Council is aware of the issues arising from managing

development on a floodplain with large areas of flood risk These concerns are also shared by DEWNR


tlood map.Bing and.hazard classificationThe inclusion of updated flood mapping for the Gawler River and new flood mapping for the Light

River, including the use of three hazard categories, is supported.

The fatest flood mapping for the Gawler Riverwas completed in2DI5 (Gowler River Floodplain Mapping

Report - Fino{, Gawler River Floodplain Management Authority. Australian Water Environments,

September 2015). In places, the DPA refers to flood plain mapping for the Gawler River prepared in

2008. The latest 2015 mapping should be used. Key changes which were incorporated into the 2015

flood modelling include:

. Revised hydrology which takes into account a larger number of flow events. This additional flowinformation allowed a more up to date estimate of the potential volume and timing of theflooding in the catchment

. Revised hydraulics including upgrades to roads and development density (roughness on the

floodplain).

The hazard categories used in the analysis section are based on Floodploin Monagement in Austrolio -

Best Practice Prhciples ond Guidelines (SCARM, 20@). This guideline has now been superseded by

Hondbook 7 Monoging the floodplo'n: o guide to best prodice in flood risk monagement in Austrolio(Attorney-General's Department, 2013) (https://knowledge.aidr.org.aulresources/handbook-7-

managinq:thefloaelplaiM and its supporting technical guidelines. USated hazard categories are

found in Guideline 7-3 (published 2017) (https:/,/knowledge.aidr.org.aulresources,/guideline-7-3-

flood-hazardD which provide guiding information on flood depth and velocities which are unsafe forpedestrians, vehicles and buildings. It is suggested that hazard categories are updated to the latest

guidelines, and the hazard mapping be revised accordingly. This is likely to require some spatial

reprocessing of the flood map source data.

Extent of Floodolain AnalysisOther considerations for managing development on a floodplain should include (in line with national

guidelines Hondbook 7 Managing the floodploin: a guide to best proctice in flood risk management'nAustralia, and its supporting guidelines):

r Flood function (e.9. primary flow path or storage area)

. Emergenry response and evacuation needs (e.9. flood islands)o Cumulative impact of development (including filling and fencing)

These have been addressed to varying degrees bythe analysis section ofthe DPA It is acknowledged

the DPA includes provisions for development to consider erracuation routes, including all-weather

vehicle access which is supported.

As shown on the flood maps, the natural flooding behaviour creates several flood free islands. Flood

hazard risk areas in the development constraint maps could be generalised (modified) to reflect the

access-related flood risk on these flood free islands. For examplq designating these islands as lowflood risk rather than no rislc


at- I3:i:',31 liffi i,:,,, Ranses

It is acknowledged that the DPA contains provisions to maintain flood fundion and manage the

impacts of filling and fencing. It is noted that filling is non-complying development in a high hazard

flood area (except for public flood mitigation infrastructure).

Nonethelest the flood mapping sholrn that much of the dwelopment plan area, including significant

portions of the new horticulture policy area, are overland flow paths for flooding from the Gawler and

Light Rivers. There is a risk that without appropriate development controls, types of regulated (e.9.

filled pads for buildings) or non-regulated development (e.9. greenhouses, private levee bank less

tltatt 1:5 f trehes ilt heigltt so

floodwaters across the floodplain without appropriate controls, even where development occurs in the

low or medium hazard flood risk areas. Critical flow conveyance paths/areas may also need to be

zoned as high hazard to control development in these areas. Consideration should be given to seeking

engineering advice to review the high flood hazard risk areas and whether these sufficiently represent

critical overland flow oaths or need to be expanded.

It is noted that land division must allow for access to the main channel and a reserve or easement for

flood protection work, which is supported.

Issues of concernL. Light River flood mapping flood etent on the north westem boundary shows that flood waters

are expected to extend outside of the flood mapping extent It is recommended that Council

consider inclusions within the DPA to address this aspect of flood risk

2. The DPA makes specific reference to Gawler and Light River flooding. DEWNR questions whether

flood risk emanating from local flooding or Salt Creek will be adequately covered by development

controls.

3. DEWNR has concems around how expanding and new greenhouse development and its impacts

(additional runoff, blocking overland flow paths) on flooding will be managed in practice for the

horticulture policy area. Playford Council have advised that many greenhouses are erected

without development approval.

Water Allocaton PlannlngThe area covered by the DPA includes part of the Northern Melaide Plains Prescribed Wells Area (l,lAP

PWA). Within this area, the taking of groundwater and conducting of water affecting activities are

subject to the provisions of the current Northern Adelaide Plains Water Allocation Plan MAP), which

is a statutory instrument under the Naturol Resources Management Act 20U. This includes taking ofgroundwater that has been artificially recharged into an aquifer. Where the expansion of horticulture

in these areas is to any degree dependent on the use of groundwater, or use of recycled effluent water,

these provisions will need to be taken into account in planning for the expansion. fu the DPA aims toaccommodate the proposed Northem Adelaide trrigation Scheme, the provisions of the NAP WAP in

regard to the use of effluent may be particularly relevant The WAP stipulates the following principles:


1. The use of effluent shall not cause a rise in underground water level sufficient to detrimentallyaffect a structure or ecosystem.

2. For the purposes of principle 1. structure includes, but is not limited to, a building, fence orwall.

3. Use of effluent shall not adversely affect the naturalflow of water or the quality of undergroundwater.

4. Dams used to store effluent should be constructed:

(a) to prevent leakage of the effluent downward through the soils

(b) to prevent overflows from the dam to the surface of the land surounding the dam; and

(c) to prevent overflow from the dam into a watercourse,

Other key policies in the NAP WAP may also be relevant to the expansion of horticulture north of theGawler River, including provisions for the taking of any additional water ftom the Quatemary aquifers,

for regulating the ability to transfer water allocations, and for conducting water-affecting activities,including the drilling of wells. For further details, see:

http://www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges/water/water-allocation-plans/adelaide-plains

The NAP WAP is currently being amendmed, and new provisions may apply when the amended WAPis adopted by the Minister. The new WAP will aim to maintain the cunent condition of groundwater ata level close to its cunent condition, and may contain provisions to manage groundwater extraction inresponse to changes in groundwater condition.

In the parts of the DPA area to the north of the prescribed wells area, the principles of the AMLRRegional NRM Plan apply to activities which may affect groundwater.It is recognised that in this area,groundwater is generally too saline for the irrigation of horticultural crops, although there are areas oflower salinity groundwater near Balaklava. However, the technology for desalination is becoming morecost-effective, so there is a potential for increased extraction of groundwater in the future.It should benoted that in circumstances where increased extraction puts the condition of groundwater resourcesat risk, the Minister may recommend the prescription of a new prescribed wells area, and the AM LR

NRM Board must then develop a water allocation plan to cover this area.

Water Sersifve Urban DesignThe Two Wells Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) 2017 is directly relevant to the scope of this DPAThe AMLR NRM Board has expressed its opinion to the Stormwater Management AuthoriV (SMA) thatthe SMP contains 'appropriate provisions', but the SMA has not yet reviewed or approved the SMP.

The SMP includes a list of the actions to be implemented as part of the SMP. A number of these willimpact on the DPA areas as a requirement for levee banks for protection from flood; a proportion ofthese levees are likely to be required to be built prior to development in the associated region. The

relevant Development Control reviews and considerations identified in the attached SMP excert shouldalso be included into the DPA Several of them are likelyto impacton development in the AMLR regionand may reduce the severity of flood impacts associated with urban infill development and improve


n^ H:ili3l ::',"ilff;'" Ranses

water quality in the receiving waters: these are WQ3 and $l/R2, NSFMI, NSFI\42, LDM3. Other actions

identifted by the SMP are proposed to be undertaken by a developer for the relevant sitet which may

have imPlications for the DPA.

To support the focus on flood hazard in this area, Council should include Water Sensitive Urban Design

MSUD) measures and maximise reuse requirements for development in the Council area.

Development should aim to meet the targets and principles set out in the poliry document - Woter

Sensitive lJrbon Duign - Creoting more liveable and woter sensitive ctties in Sortth Australio (SA Gov.,

2013).This will hel liance

of the coun

effective use of rainwoter tonks in the existing township as well as in the 30 Year Growth Areos ond

hcorporate WSIJD sFtems within council infrostrudure worlcs (eg rood upgrades) ond streelscape

upgrad* for o futly devetopd Two Welb and the 30 year Grovvth Area was found to reduce runoff

volumes by j70 ML or approximately 37%."

Impacts from greenhouse developments from the increase in impermeable surfaces should be

considered in the DPA, as this development has the potential to increase the risk of downstream flood

impacts. Mitigation measures to ensure capture and reuse of stormwater from greenhouse

developments should be required.

CoastalThe Plan and maps within the DPA should be adjusted to include the boundaries of the Upper Gulf St

Vincent Marine Park as these park boundaries come some distance inland around the Light River area

which is included within the DPA. The Marine Park has established the 16km2 Light River Delta

Sanctuary Zone around this wetland of national importance'

Although the DPA includes general provisions for horticulture development to contain stormwater and

waste water on site, the Marine Parks Act 2007 and related "Genero I duty of care' provisions (Part 5 ofthe Act) whereby 'o person must take all reasonoble measures to prevent or mtnimise harm to a marine

park through hb or her octions or adivitis" should be reiterated with regards to minimising land based

impacts to the marine environment, particularly with regards to development around the Gawler and

Light River areas of the DPA

Tly! increased intensive horticulture usage in this area has the potential to increase risk of stormwater

impacts and chemical impacts ftom agricultural products. Additionaly, the AMLR region notes the

intention of the DPA to support expansion of alternative and intensive primary industry activities,

including allied food industries which could include chemical suppliers. There is likelyto be an increase

in on-site chemical storage with more intensive horticulture, possibly in flood prone areas. It may be

pertinent given flood risks, to increase the provisions for storage containment of chemical and

hazardous materials to specifo measures to better safeguard containment to safeguard against flood

impacts and loss of chemicals to the environment

Offshore areas lie within the Marine Park and the DPA should take due consideration of duty of care

obligations and be supportive of the Martne ParksAct 2007 and Moine Parla Regulotions 2008. Toning

includes a Habitat Protection Zone inshore (to provide protection for species and habitats within a

marine park, whilst allowing activities and uses that do not harm habitats or the functioning of


ecosystems) and gnctuary Zones out to 200m {to lrovlde protection and conservation for habitats

and biodiversity within a marine par( where the removal or harm of plants, animals or marine products

is prohibited).

Whilst the Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary could also be mentioned, the Notionol Parks andWdlife Ad 1972 does not have the same duty of care provisions as the Marine Porks Act 2007.

The proposed fencing restrictions within flood areas should not impact NRM works as the AMIRregion preferentially uses post and wire, not mesh.

The DPA area may contain areas of temperate saltmarsh, which are a threatened community under theEnvironment Biodiversity Consewation Act (EPBC) 1999. Historic and some proposed currenthorticultural expansion in the Playford Area appears to be proposed on areas where temperate

saltmarsh exists. There may, thereforg be a requirement for development within these areas toconsider whether an EPBC referral is required.

Green Inftastructure and BlodlvercltyThe AMLR region, in general, supports the proposed changes to the Adelaide Plains CouncilDevelopment Plan, with the following changes/comments:

The Desired Character Statement notes:

"Landscoping will be corefully integrated with builtform, ensuring thot vegetotion 's sustainoble, droughttoleront, locolly indigenous ond motched to the scole of developmenl while olso providing o comfortable,pleosant ond ottroctive environment...

The actent of nattve vegetotion in the zone is limited and iE retention, whether in oreos or as scattered

trees, is o high prbrity. Where practical, the a<isting notive vegetotion will be incorporoted into odevelopment design....Cor porking areos will include trees to provide shode ond enhance v'suol omenttyond the oppeorance of outdoor storage areas will olso be enhonced through landscoping."

The retention of existing native vegetation is supported, however, whilst the use of drought tolerantlocally indigenous species is a desirable default in terms of increasing habitat and reducing water use,

they may not be the best choice in terms of reducing urban heat, especially adjacent buildings and incar park where larger leaf, deciduous trees, preferably in conjunction with on-site water retention,may be more appropriate. Therefore, the region recommends the following changes to the statement

"Landscoping will be carfuIly integroted with built form including cor po*ing and autdoor storage areas,

ensurbg thd vegetdien b sastahable- dreaght telerank leeaily indigeneus end matehed te the s€ale efdevehpmene wnib ake pr ..The extent ofnative vegetation in the zone is linited and iB raention, whether in oreas or os scottered trees, is o highpriority. Where pradico[ the a<isting notive vegetotion will be incorporoted nto a4evelopment design.

Landscaoing will othenwise be motched to site conditions and the scale of the development. and ideallycoupled wtth Woter Sensitive Urbon Design systems k.g. swales or permeable povingl, to provide

evaporative cooling and shoding. stormwater retention ond/or detention and treatment. habitat or otherdesired functions, while abo providing an attractive and pleasant environment. eerpa*iag-arces+illi

"


at H:l1',5::ffi"ili'ff;t, Ranses

The AMLR region also recommends the inclusion of the following Principle of Development Control in

support of the Desired Character Statement

"A minbnum of one medium to lorge tree capoble of providing summer shade should be proided per 8

cor parking boys within off street vehicle parking areos."

Regional PlannlngThe Regional NRM Plan takes a landscape approach and considers social and economic influences on

the management of the AMLR region's natural resources. It also provides more detail at a subregional

levet atd idet ltines specific pr iol ities foradiorrwittlhrudeimb

As the Adelaide Plains Council is in the Northern Coast and Plains subregion, the DPA should consider

and align with the subregion's key priorities. These are detailed in the Regional NRM Plan and can be

found on the AMLR region's website: www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges/home.

Relevant NRM Plan Priorities include:. Manage the allocation and use of water resources to provide water for the environment and

for sustainable use by industry (quantity)

. Encourage increased demand, and supply of, altemative water sources for fit-for-purpose uses

(stormwater and recycled water). Protect priority primary production areas from inappropriate development to maintain

industry and business viabilitYo Promote sustainable horticulture management to reduce impacts on the environment

. Minimise the impacts of new development (particularly agricultural, industrial and urban) in

ther northem coast and adjacent subregions through appropriate land use planning controls

If you require any additional information please contact Eilidh Wilson, Senior Policy Officer, on

telephone 8226 8547.

Yours sincerely

Piers BrissendenA. MANAGER PARKS AND SUSTAINABTE IAND5CJTPES

On behalf on tre Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR

Date: 9 October 2017

Encfosed: Two Wells Stormurater Management Plan 2OL7 excerPt

J,/I


Ftr'.qt&iarlbdlc.&!"x!!$

0t-r!6

r&16!r i..d$d.S,n(.Glr/u tr6 t'lrcrrh& 40 h.l

Redrldrb.90raGE-rt&- -!h.r ldd PlEd !o Btq&.dld:O ld 6rDdr rra

-n b. tud.d b'rbddBlr{drlil tur Fctb! c!ot6!br,t! ata ed crt t$t

l'a {r& i.rd 6d ldlbod Bltiin@ @t! dadt irrctdd nr !otd€rlrin &d€dld !0!e oEin aa

ruoEs@! la6!aE! srwE!&@drd0!. |bdearnon.,6.!rt[ 6dr <r 6116 R.!dt

hrrdlrE r!d!aet!)Eantll@at66!e!6.4o. TrB.tt rq.dttr. &rdo cr! !. FEdd.dforl''t e{ t h lDol& ld .|.'| fta lnhd tn c.ntt

!'n b!s.lalen !d!r!€n.drr @ed Pr!

i.dcbsi rL. ll.a.rn! ie |!l,o1! ti

tb.q h. t b lmArutb.a Gr.! Ac!.!{&dr 16 ard6 d &..tbd n rt!...drraidt

ro5!d hr rh lo A& lL..L Cd ar4rd.d rid! mrlrllEr

. r€le ot li6 a.lada.tacnrltto.lb 6{.4rrn dsrqanqdlr{ Edin Fqlarn d Fi{..Fr.r@

. tlrn b @rrr.rbrdr R6rl rlir6t !. dt.t d

ufr: cn@- slta srd orda trd6 bidtlCdotr dotl qdlior t6hn ttic&n d ,r@ 2-t

8.Cr..anr4@r r!.dl'll c ltulce .tth. @r6!at ntlr dn@E.@ridP6.!.grlrltlr,..6 ot

'|a663dcssrud F6o6r a'.r-ir6 d!b.i6

|j,E@@[email protected]!@!g@&bin l!aios@dldn dllilll,'dEl!6116rll n ! Dc..rr.!r ildb! t10

coln !6}i3 ot htdra!. -!rFb.rlq d.!L @n!.$n !c,06 r! !.rd!n bd6&.!!rJoddE €nb@!.6r!.irr@6!r.

.lrlio.rl !.an tldt rrhdDr6,arlnl.gE@l! nladLl '.6.1' dr!..!!r otlFbn[dc.!.ned.rhrrg6t![da!!.d.to.d6dtitBD{!6.rd6nbr!aE,Erdb&nrdrd..€rri!bertab.rot p.rrt FrtY,iddth.ra C dr.!trE!. rL'dltrnd i.qcr.nr. e'!.6 !sa.d !6ncb..i tm ffi d6r.toE!.tt-t|!!d .@sr@rrr@dwcrDdrq€ 6q!b6.Ar o oi!.n -ll|r6d hdldq !€6., Sr.et.t F!t&

l.d.nr!t !!. rd.trd.a !.1

nr{AldtorlOt.r6dtn&a-ibratadtsrdrt

&qdnd tc t td 6106 aartD

a.cqt,8'Fdi(&d5.1(]dd6..6d'*abl

E €Aln toerddddhi ldrdlllet€ ft193* l?tSt &dTN s4ti3.

Pdr$op!..!8n&r !. dtld FtL ord r!e, r.!.tn.rdhd!6tn@qsl''firit t!.@@!rel


{tIi 00-|!a

raddtc !oF. Gdr!A16 - G@ Lln Pr..i to

Atrirlilor&'!fOdth&4-6@r!!dt tdt b fto tl

It|l' orlr [email protected]@ b !.dr d..&t n ni!.'tEle 6.G. FCarAt t6rt(o'Dtr! l! tbGt d

r4d r.dr.d r.dldao !3tot!'d@o i3!9ti l?gtta.d rr 6t

prdr.b orF!nd66 ro !$e rdoc oFn 3p&.. .ll.i,tB!!l. d.tdEd qi!6r6r!tt 6mrdldd

at'drlr2P' @drh. dcqtrd @ [email protected]'6nb-*!! llin rYd

F15

tr t tulr.bn&nd IF $tS lilihla !.s 6dln &6&.r6&6lto nlno @dlr/olrnaa b!70 |,l6

r.!!6tr!b 6.a !i drl r., @.L !& 6 trtlc 6E&.rrid (ld tna 5 r*AFi b tb d.-d6 ddr.t.

[email protected] r!.d tl'erlb.l6! rt raeF ilsn dlc!,!6 dd a . reld hlt..rt !t!!. hFd d.l'dn ddldr.rs@i

le{tdnrcha€!rab5!rornt,r!6.9r6tdFr!&.F.rnhh 6. td'l&, !..t!b lde.d@rn .16 6. qu&t C.urd &d Fall op'.r!&rb16 hr6.d .r!6 ol ro.rie.$t&t!.6 lnlnr llt

c@tt'366r.L4 @.eaFdrdb.i.F.tlbd !r..E d tt_n!r'!t d!16andttes

6Brddddr d tltt&t @.id 3lt4l!, tlldot!! r.l.rts rr{. o tni ol6didc &rvd d.ntl'66 ott!.ne.don tln Ugtr 8iE, ltd tlb tt!6 tslhd vr.b6.

ft .dd!![rb6n &'!thddldrudnton l@itct!r, no.d de{!r r.d!d ! d!. .!6tdtt!lr!l!.o ratdrdr! 6r!il!

t*td.F..ri.tda qt .Er &d '!s oq.r$,6 &di.rt! hcqEdt o.dcBil,! l'!n @r6t ndlrlttdGqFlrsf t|!!!6ei$.liM!8!f.l!q@

ir.lrd 4..@ M6rtF6! Pb ford..rd4perlbqrr&ti.n 16 t]f3rt@.'!.dl -!d bdMrtCr d9! itlal d! dd!r. r.tb rra.ct or d


lQ*t t dt BLa!-.rb aM h &brrbd.!.6 arr@|lr c$@n K!& r&@n $16|',..odD io.4 34!n6 Ca.nr€n drE w.|! r.d!.!


From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Attachments:

Hi Megon,

Parekh, Ashutosh [Ashutosh. Parekh@apa'com'au]Wednesday, 18 October 2017 1 :07 PMMegan LewisHaynes, Matthew; Liew, ChrisFW: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation -

25.08.17virgina Gate pipeline.bmp; como glasshouse pipeline.bmp; Flood risk areas.bmp

We hove no1ronsmission pipelines in the offected oreo but we do hove two disiribution pipelines in

the oreo.Ihe first is the high pressure DN3OO steel lo 280mm polyeihylene pipeline thot runs from the

Virginio Gote slolion to Two Wells qnd the second is the l8Omm polyethvlere hiOh greslule,plp'-€|l":f of dev t oreq, ond

the iwo high pressure pipeline locotions.

Bosicolly it seems thol some qreqs of Primory Production zone ore being rezoned os qn Urbon

Employmeni zone, lndustriql ond Suburbon. Also there is cr reroting of the I in q 100 yeor flood risk level

for the qreo, see qitoched for mop. When developing ihis oreo, due considerotion must be given to

the proximity of development in relotion 1o our lines; pleose contoct us if unsure'

Pleose lel us know if you hove ony further queslions.

Kind Regords,

Ashulosh Pqrekh

Acting Mqnoger - Assel lnspeclion ond Proleclion

APA Group

lnlegrity GrouPPO Box 885 Homilton Centrol OLD 4007

60 Schneider Rood Eogle Form QLD 4009

Oflice 07 3215 6665

Mobife 0484 296 348

Fqx 07 3215 6699

Emqil nshutosh.Porekh d ooo.com.ouWeb www.opo.com.ou

From: Liew, ChrisSent: Monday, 28 August 2017 3:08 PM

To: Parekh, AshutoshSubject: FW: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25'08't7

Hi Ashulosh,

This one for ihe AIP teom to l'evlew.

Besl Regords,


Chris LiewAsset Integrily Monoger

APA GroupNelworks, Plonning & Engineering330 Gronge Rood, Kidmon Pork SA 5025PO Box l7l, Findon SA 5023

d +61 88159 1699m +61 458890509f +61 881591749e [email protected] www.opo.com.ou

From: Megan Lewis [ma ilto : [email protected]. gov.au]Sent: Monday, 28 August 2OI7 2t04PMTo: Megan LewisSubject Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25,08,17

Dear Stakeholder,

Please find attached the Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development PlanAmendment, which has been released for public and agency consultation from 25 August to 20 October 2017.

Kind regards

Megan Lewis I Planning OfficerDevelopment and Communityl P: (08) 8527 0200 | E: mlewis@a pc.sa.sov.au

PO Box 18, Mallala 5A 5502 | www.apc.sa.sov.au

@i$:ii::"Celebroting 80 unique years of history as the District Council ol Moltolo -Embracing our future prosperity os Adeldide Ploins Council.

This endil and ony otto(ht ents ore rntended solely lor the nomed recipient only. The inlonnotion it cantoins rnoy be conftdentiolor commerciolly sensitive. lf you ore not the intended recipient you must not Ltse, repraduce or distribute ony part af this emoil ordisclose its corlterl-s fo ony ather porty. Pleose contoct us immediotely otld then delete the nessoge t'ront your conputet.

This email and any aitachment is confidential, nray be subject to legal privilege, and is for the use of the intenaeorecipient only lf received in error, please notify APA by reply and delete the ernail. lf you are not the intendedrecipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this nraterial is prohibited. Views expressed are those ofthe author arld not APA. APA does not guarantee nor accept liability for the reliability, completeness or confidentialityof any entarl communication, nor its freedom from harmful viruses or software

APA handles personal information in accordance with relevant privacy laws and our privacy policy is accessible onAPA's website.

This ernail has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security,cloud service.For more information please visit http://www. svrnanteccloud. con.t


Two Wells town pipeline

Virginia Gate station


Como glasshouse inlet

EPlc gate supply


tI'. Ir.l.

r'-'\t-.1'j''l '/-'

t; Ltsht\. Raglonal, Council

r.-1F'net-'-it-) i

Land Not Withine Councll

Arca (Coastal Watars)

\ Land lVot\ r Counci,

\._ (Metro)

These ops haye been grepatEd o.r lre ba$3 of 3ur'cy hlcroJtuc and h/drologlc modelhg

They sre only ntcnded to be uScd as 6 poltct lool lof pl3nn'ni purposes and In broad ecllcflood rist managan\ant ord lh") lhould nol tle rel€d on fo{ any clf|cr !'(rrpo3e

They do nol pulpon lo ilusgate ocl!! inundabo. ganen:5, whrch lrrn acp.dl on t\e !r:eand nrtura ol a prrdculai tlood

Flood Hazard Risk Areas(1 in 100 year ARI nood event)

N

A0km

High

Medrunl

LoaDevelo|nrlert Plan Bound3ry

Overlay Map M alllDEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

LonoHorse Ptans F-ptaris

LJtr,taut2

MALLALA COUNCILStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 110 of 431 6 November 2017

Government of South Australla

Primary Industries and Regions 5A

RURAL SOLUNONS SA

LevellE25 g8ddl SlrEslAdelalds SA 5mGPo Box 1671Adelalde SA @1DX 607

Tsl (0E) 8420 0341

wrir,plr.sagov.au

I

I

Our reference: A3354050

19 October 2017

Megan LewisPlanning OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box 18

Dear Ms Lewis,

Adefaide Plalns Gouncil Notthem Foodbowl Protection Areas DevelopmentPlan Amendment

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Development Plan Amendment(DPA).

PIRSA appreciates our working relationship with Council staff and with yourplanning consultants on the DPA. PIRSA's interest in the proposed changes to yourDevelopment Plan has several dimensions. Noting the major investment committedby the South Australian and Australian Govemments in the Northem Adelaidelnigation Scheme (NAIS) project, we are keen to see that the types of water-dependent primary production made possible by the Scheme are enabled andsupported by appropriate land use policy. Related to this, we believe it importantthatforms and pattems of development that may compromise those key economicdevelopment and associated outcomes are appropriately controlled. We would alsowish to see that potential interface issues arising from land use changes driven by

the NAIS are anticipated and managed so that existing farm businesses are notsubject to unforeseen imPacts.

Attached is a list of the more detailed comments that PIRSA has to offer at thisstage (Appendix 1), we will also provide separately an annotated copy of the DPAin electronic format that includes more detailed comments, suggested alternativetext, and notes on typographical matters.

A key point I wish to emphasise for your consideration relates to the range ofpotential uses of NAIS water anticipated by the NAIS project and the way theseuses are addressed within the DPA. In particular, while the NAIS project has been

developed with horticultural expansion as a key consideration, our understanding isthat water provided by the Scheme should be available to any water-dependentprimary production activity that can profitably use the water. In this regard I draw


your attention to our comments on the DPA's policy treatment of intensive animalkeeping and land-based aquaculture.

The exlentto which the DPA dres, in@, enable and support the types of water-dependent primary production made possible by the l,lAlS is another key point forconsideration. We believe the DPA presents an opportunity for a broader and futurelooking approach in this regard, especially in its use of complying developmentstatus. While we are mindful that this mechanism needs to be deployed carefully,PIRSA would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this mafter with you andrepresentatives of the Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure beforethe DPA is finalised.

As you are aware, project proposals for the use of NAIS water have been sought bySA Water and proposals will require various approvals besides planningpermission. I encourage Councilto continue liaising with PIRSA, our partneragencies, especially SA Water, and the stakeholder forums established to progressinitiatives on the Northem Adelaide Plains. I would be happy to discussopportunities for closer engagement at your convenience.

We look fonrvard to continuing to work with you and should you wish to discuss thisfurther, please contact Peter Houston on 8429 A112.

Yours sincerely

PoNL--'zBefg[il PaoloDIRECTOR, MAJOR PROGRAMS


APPENDIX 1

ADETAIDE PLAINS COUNCIL NORTHERN FOODBOWL PROTECTION AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

PRINCIPAL COMMENTS FROM PIRSA

lnterface module

o By itself PDC 21 may not be sufficient to dealwith known land use conflictscenarios. Targeted information and support for land use conflict scenariost t tay-be-necessary to et tsut e dpro.iect for example, can co-exist with neighbouring primary producers.


Desired Character statements for the zone and policy area are potentiallyimportant elements of the policy framework and therefore need to be clearerand less confusing. Both would benefit ftom a more carefulediting or re-writing, if only to better contextualise the NAIS project and the implications ofits water supply.

Notwithstanding that the NAIS prospectus (p.9) anticipates various uses ofits water, the DPA cunently treats intensive livestock operations as non-complying development in Horticulture Policy Area 3, where waterinfrastructure is most likely to be developed. By implication, this prescription

includes land-based aquaculture, although the DPA is silent on that topic.Given that EPA separation distances would preclude intensive livestockoperations from the more sensitive parts of Policy Area 3 anyway, and thatthe NAIS prospectus anticipates the use of MIS water by land-basedaquaculture, we believe the treatment of these forms of development in theDPA should be reconsidered.

Land division policy PDC 19(c) seeks to establish a test of the bona fides ofland division proposals in Horticulture Policy Area 3 so as to avoidinappropriate fragmentation of land. While the intent is supported, thestatement itself appears impractical.

Constraints on greenhouse development in flood hazard zones should bereviewed. While it may be unlikely that major greenhouse investments wouldbe made entirely on sites subject to high flood risk, consideration should begiven to allowing engineered solutions that require site modification on parts

of flood prone sites to enable those major greenhouse investnents to occur'

Policies regarding land division and dwelling construction appear broadlysuitable. However, consideration might be given to measures, possibly


separate from this DPA, to ensure that demand for accommodation arisingfrom NAIS-related jobs does not lead to land division and dwellingconstruction pressures that compromise site assembly for new investmentsor spill into the widerfarming landscape.

The DPA makes very limited use of complying development status in thecircumstances. Given the nature of the NAIS project and the likelihood thateventual development will be geographically focussed and similar in form,we believe consideration should be given to wider use and/or a morecreative deployment of this status, such that potential issues are addressedin an integrated way in retum for an expedited assessment process.

There is some inconsistency of terminology relating to greenhousedevelopment (eg. "enclosed horticulture', "intensive enclosed production (eg.glasshouses)', "intensive production in an enclosed, artificial environment)which needs to be resolved to avoid confusion for proponents.

Public notification anangements are unclear and should be clarified.


Summary of Comments for Northern Food

Areas DPA - Consultation Version 25.48.L7

20L7L0LL.pdf

Total of 47 comments in this file

Bowl Protection- PIRSA feedback

, oaoe 49 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct L0 2Ot7 14:58:56 GMT+1030-liif,ii cciniiiient with PDCs 38 and 39 below re Chemical and Hazardous Materials?

PIRSA will confirm with Biosecurity SA.

. oaoe 50 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct 10 20L7 L4:50:32 GMT+1-030-Wf,iiJtt,?r impoitance of avoiding earthworks that might exacerbate flooding is

understood and supported, suggest this matter may be better dealt with as part of a

local industry-driven practice code, NRM project with growers, or similar. To the

extent crop rows are employed in NAP field horticulture, they are probably

significantiy higher than 100mm. And alignment of rows (relative to the likely

direction oi floodwaters) may be more important than height. In any case, does the

creation of 'crop rows' constitute development?

. Daoe 59 bv houstpOL on Tue Oct L0 20L7 I5:L7:48 GMT+1030'- fl.lnt"ht ottfris statement becomes confused in the last line. Suggested alternate

wordings:

New primary production development (including open field and enclosed

horticulturej should be sited and designed to ensure that it does not detrimentally

impact upon normal day-to-day activities (including chemical spraying) of established


primary production uses on adjoining land.ORNew primary production development (including open field and enclosedhorticulture) should be sited and designed to ensure that it does not prejudice thecontinuation of legalfarm operations (ncluding chemical spraying) on adjoining land['he latter option employs terms consistent with the previous PDC]

. paoe 81 bv houstp0l on Tue Oct LO 2OL7 L5:59:11 GMT+L030' ..lat the intersection of Long Plains Road and Adelaide Road?

. paqe 81 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct t0 20L7 16:01:12 GMT+1030' TJ-ris seems to irhply that NAIS water is only for the purpose of horticulturaldevelopment. What about other water-dependent development including intensivelivestock and land-based aquaculture?

paqe 8l- by houstpOl on Tue Oct 1-0 20L7 L6.03:32 GMT+1030' Agree in principle but the meaning of sections of this statement are unclear andpotentially confusing. Su ggest rewriting.

. page 81 by houstpOl on Tue Oct LO 2017 16:05:29 GMT+I-030Chemical spraying is subject to theAgricultural and Veterinary Products Act (Confrol of Use) Acl2002.lt is notdevelopment and, hence, not subject to planning controls. While it is important toavoid land use conflict in the settings mentioned, that goal should be expresseddifferently here, noting that the source of conflict may arise on either side of thetownship /settlement boundaries in question.

. page 81 by houstp0l on Tue Oct 10 20L7 16:07:31 GMT+1030This statement is vague and reaches into questions of management and landproductivity, both of which may be beyond the ambit of planning poliry.

. page 81- by houstp0L on Fri Oct t3 2017 13:L5:18 GMT+1030Suggest re-writing the Desired Character statement to address concerns listed below.

. page 82 by houstp0L on Fri Oct L3 2017 12:59:25 GMT+1030, including greenhouses and other forms of protected cropping

. page 82 by houstpOl on Fri Oct L3 2017 13:00:55 GMT+1030...and land-based aquaculture

. page 82 by houstpOl on Fri Oct L3 2017 13:31:34 GMT+1030This statement is vague and reaches into questions of management and landproductivity, both of which may be beyond the ambit of planning poliry.


' paoe 83 bv houstp0L on Tue Oct L0 20t7 16:10:16 GMT+1030' Meanin{ is unclear. Suggested alternate wording:(a) there is a demonstrated connection with an existing or approved primaryproduction activity on the subject land or an adjoining allotment

. paqe 83 bv houstp0l on Tue Oct LO 2AL7 16:15:34 GMT+1030' S"uggest6d alterhate wording:500 metres from an existing intensive animal keeping operation, unless proposed tobe used in association with that activity

. page€3$y heus*pOl en-f.Bee41o2sl7-+6+H:35 G\{T t 1030

-

' l-OO meties from a bulk handling facility, unless proposed to be used in association

with that activitY

. paqe 83 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct I0 20L7 L6:.L9:.4L GMT+1030' tJris is vigue and, unless the Council has specific reasons for clustering such

development around the saleyards, may be unnecessarily restrictive. The other PDCs

seem to provide adequate criteria for assessment.

. oaoe 83 bv houstp0l- on Tue Oct LA 2AL7 L6:20:47 GMT+1030' Agree afid support but the meaning of Non-agricultural related development isunclea r. Suggest re-writing.

. Daoe 83 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct L0 20L7 L6:23:21GMT+1030' Why nof with a new land use ? Eg. a solar PV array associated with a major newg reenhouse development?

. oaoe 85 bv houstp0l on Tue Oct L0 2OL7 !7:05:22 GMT+1030' Tle inteirt of this statement is supported, but the implications may be counter-productive, noting that investors are unlikely to secure a water supply in advance ofa site. Suggest re-writing.

. oaqe 85 bv houstpOL on Tue Oct t0 2017 L7:LO:49 GMT+1030' P-IRSA sripports'a policy that avoids fragmentation of land in the area where NAIS

infrastructure is likelyto be developed and where investors will seek to assembleproject sites. However, please advise the basis of nominating 8ha. And given existingallotment sizes in the policy area (presumably much larger than 8ha) is there a risk ofmultiple new 8ha allotments being created speculatively? 19(c) needs to workeffectively to avoid such a scenario.

. Daoe 85 bv houstpOl on Fri Oct B 2AL7 L5:22:46 GMT+1030' S-uggest're-writing to: L) reflect comments elsewhere about the intended uses ofNAIS water, ie. including intensive livestock and land-based aquaculture; and 2)

acknowledge that large parts of the policy area will continue to be used for general

farming.


. page 85 by houstpOl on Fri Oct t3 2017 t5:27:36 GMT+1030As above.

. oaoe 86 bv houstpOl- on Tue Oct L0 20L7 L7:22:31GMT+1030' diven th'e Oesir6d Character statements for the zone and the policy area havedifferent emphases, this will create confusion. Another reason to re-write the DCS.

. oaoe 86 bv houstpOL on Tue Oct L0 20]7 t7:52:.49 GMT+L030' Agree with som'e of these statements bu! overall, they do not describe DesiredCharacter. Suggest re-writing.

. page 86 by houstp0L on Mon Oct L6 2Ol7 t2:46:05 GMT+1-030See Objective L on previous page

. paqe 87 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct L0 20L7 L7:24:43 GMT+1030' NetS wifi likely iesult in projects substantially larger than 2ha. Note also that 'grossleasable area' may not be an appropriate descriptor.

. oaoe 87 bv houstoOl on Tue Oct L0 20]-7 17:26:49 GMT+1030' Ste various destriptions elsewhere here relating to greenhouses.

. paoe 87 bv houstoOl- on Mon Oct L6 20L7 L2:46:50 GMT+1030' B-y implication, only greenhouse development enjoys complying development status,not field horticulture?

. oaoe 88 bv houstp0l on Fri Oct L3 2OL7 L4:56:LL GMT+1030' Wfrlle it ieems unlikely that major greenhouse investments would be made entirelyon sites subject to high flood rish there should probably be some scope forengineered solutions on parts of flood prone sites. This is something that could becovered technically in a flood engineer's report

. page 89 by houstpOl- on Tue Oct LO 20L7 L7:34:.51GMT+L030Presumably PDC 5 criteria also apply?And given the job numbers likely to be associated with new water-dependentdevelopment, a parallel strategy for worker accommodation/ worker transport inHorticulture Poliry Area 3 may be appropriate?

. paqe 89 bv houstpOl on Tue Oct L0 2017 17:35:59 GMT+1030' P-resumably PDC 5 criteria also apply?

. page 89 by houstp0l on Fri Oa 73 20L7 L4:3L:20 GMT+1030Noting earlier comments about the intended uses of NAIS water, suggestreconsideration of this statement so that IAK (and land-based aquaculture?) are notprecluded from where NAIS water will most likely be available. Existing EPA

separation distances should provide enough of a filter to keep intensive livestockoperations away from Gawler River, rural living, and townships areas.

. page 89 by houstp0l on Fri Oct L3 20L7 L4:4L:L2 GMT+1030Does this include land-based aquaculture?


. oaoe 90 bv houstpOL on Fri Oct L3 2OL7 L4:26:L8 GMT+1030' What if 5 major'new greenhouse project inside Horticulture Policy Area 3 wanted tocompost plant waste on site?

. paoe 91" bv houstpOL on Tue Oct L0 2AL7 L7:40:L2 GMT+1030' What if 5 major'new greenhouse project inside Horticulture Poliry Area 3 wanted tocompost plant waste on site?

. paqe 91 by houstpOl on Tue Oct L0 2OL7 L7:4L:57 GMT+1-030' Tlis list is confusing, especially in relation to Horticulture.

'page o on Tue Oct 10Does t s mean its Cat 1 or Cat 3?

. pqge 91- by.houstpOl on Fri Oct L3 2017 L4:2L:47 GMT+1030Meanrng rs unclear.


Adelaide Plains Gouncil

Northern Food BowlProtection Areas DPA

The Amendment

For Consultation

@


Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA


Attochment A


OBJECTIVES

1 Maintenance of the natural environment and systems by limiting development in areas susceptible to

natural hazard risk.

2 Development located away from areas that are vulnerable to, and cannot be adequately and effectivelyprotected from the risk of natural hazards.

5

as , emergency servicefacilities, and emergency seNice facilities located where they are not exposed to natural hazard risks.

Development located and designed to minimise the risks to safety and property from flooding.

Protection of life and property from the effects of flooding by:

(a) The prevention of development which could cause a potential hazard in the event of a maior flood

(b) development within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps -Development Conslrarnts which minimises impedance to the flow of floodwaters

Development located to minimise the threat and impact of bushtires on life and property.

Expansion of existing non-rural uses directed away from areas of high bushfire risk.

The environmental values and ecological health of receiving waterways and marine environmentsprotected from the release of acid water resulting from the disturbance of acid sulphate soils.

Protection of human health and the environment wherever site contamination has been identified or is

suspected to have occurred.

Appropriate assessment and remediation of site contamination to ensure land is suitable for the proposed

use and provides a safe and healthy living and working environment.

Minimisation of harm to life, property and the environment through appropriate location of development

and appropriate storage, containment and handling of hazardous materials.

PRINGIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1 Development should be excluded from areas that are vulnerable to, and cannot be adequately and

effectively protected from, the risk of hazards.

2 Devefopment located on land subject to hazards as shown on tte Overlay Maps - Development

Gonsfralnfs should not occur unless it is sited, designed and undertaken with appropriate

precautions being taken against the relevant hazards.

3 There should not be any significant interference with natural processes in order to reduce the

exposure of development to the risk of natural hazards.

6

I

9

10

11


Flooding

4 Development should not occur on land where the risk of flooding is likely to be harmful tosafety or damage property.

5 Developmenl should not be undertaken in areas liable to inundation by tidal, drainage orfloodwaters unless the developmsnt can achieve all of the following:

(a) it is developed with a public stormwater system capable of catering for a 1-in-100 year averagereturn interval flood event

(b) buildings are designed and constructed lo prevent the entry of floodwaters in a 1-in-100 yearaverage return interval flood event.

6 Within lhe Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on tne Overlay Maps - DevelopmentConslraints:

(a) the finlshed floor level for dwellings, buildings for the keeping ol animals. ancl gully traps shoulcl be atninimunr of 300 millimetres above the height of a f -in-100 year average return interval flood event ofthe Gawler River or Light River or natural suface level. whichever is greater

(b) the finished floor level for outbuildings should be a minrmum ot 150 millimetres above the herghl of a1-in-100 year average return interval flood event of tlre Gawler River or Lighl River or natural surfacelevel. whichever is greater

(c) allotments should contain sufficient area to accommodate the uses for which the land is interrded

(d) filling {or purposes ancillary to or associated with an approved use of land should be to a maximum of100 millimetres above natural ground level

(e) filling requrred to raise the finished floor level ol a building should not extend nrore than 10 metresbeyond the external walls of that building

(f) driveways should be:

(i) filled to a maximum ol 100 millirnetres above natural gr<.rund level

(ii) no more than 5 metres wide

7 Development, including earthworks associated with development, should not do any of the following:

(a) impede the flow of floodwaters through the land or other surrounding land

(b) increase the potential hazard risk to public safety of persons during a flood event

(c) aggravale the polential for erosion or siltation or lead to the destruction of vegetation during a flood

(d) cause any adverse effect on the floodway function

(e) increase the risk of flooding of other land

(f) obstruct a watercourse.

8 Additions to dwellings localed on land subject to the Medlum or High Flood Hazard RiskAreas or inundalion by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event should be in the


form of upper level additions and should not increase the total floor area at ground level of the

dwelling.

9 Buildings for human habitation and residential outbuildings (e.9. garages or sheds) proposed

on land subject to flooding or inundation by a f-in-100 year average return Interval flood event

should be designed:

(a) to withstand forces arising from flow, debris and buoyancy pressure

(b) to ensure that wiring, power ouuets and fixed electrical items (such as air-conditionrng

units) are positioned above the envisaged flood level

'10 Residential outbuildings (e.g. garages or sheds) on land subiect to flooding or inundation by a f-in-100

year average return inteNal flood event should:

(a) not be used for living purposes

(b) not exceed 60 square metres in total floor area

Peman€nt storage of goods and equipment on land liable to inundation by floodwaters should

bs at least 300 millimettes above the predicted level of a 1-in-100 year annual retum interval

flood event.

Development should not occur where access by emergency vehicles or essential utility service

vehicles would be prevented by a 1-in-100 year average l:eturn interval flood event.

Educational establishments, child care and aged care facilities should not be located in areas

that may be affected by a f-in-100 year average return interval flood event unless public safety

can be protected and safe evacuation is available if needed,

Emergency service facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, police stations and other similar

types of facilities should be located above the predicted level for a 1-in-100 year average return

interval flood event.

Gawler River and Light River Flood Hazard Rask AreasThe following principles of development control apply to development located within the Gawler

River or Light River Flood Hazard Risk Arcas, as shown o Overlay Maps - Development

Constralnts. These principles of development control are additional to others contained within this

development plan, and shall prevail where conflict may exist.

15 Development should be sited, designed and undertaken with appropriate precautions

consistent with the relevant flood risk category as described in the table below:

1'l

12

13

14

Water D6pth and Flow Veloclty

LOW(relates to low depth and low velocity floodingwhere evacuation via wading by people is possibleand escape by small vehicle is achievable)

Zero to 0.3 metres depth at flood where velocitiesare generally low (up to 0.3 metres per second)


Medium Up to 0.6 metres depth at flood where velocities(relates to areas where the flood depth is deeper are low, or from 0.3 metres depth where velocitiesand/or flows dre faster where wading through wator ate high (up to 0.8 metres per secondl.by children and elderly is more difficult andevacuation by small car is only possible in the earlystages of flooding, with 4WD vehicles or trucksrequired at later stages)

High From 0.6 metres (including areas of 2 metres plus)(relates to deeper and or fast flow of waters where depth of flood, even where velocities are very low,wading through water is either difficult or or at depths from 0.6 metres where velocities areimpossible for adults and evacuation is required by high (up to 1.5 metres per second and greater).boat or helicopter)

16 Development outside of the Medium and High Flood Hazard Risk Areas should have all-weather vehicular access that does not require access to it by road across land within a

Medium or High Flood Risk Area.

17 Development of a dwelling should only occur if the site is located within the Low Flood HazardRisk Area.

18 Allotments within the Low Frood Hazard Risk Area should conlain sufficienl area toaccommodate the uses for which the land is intended.

19 Land division should:

(a) not result in additional allotments created wholly within the Medium and High FloodHazard Risk Areas

(b) provide public access to the banks of the river in the form of a reserve or easementnecessary for public utility services or to facilitate the construction of flood proteclion worksassociated with a regional flood mitigation scheme.

20 Filling required to raise the finished floor level of a building should:

(a) not extend more than 7 metres beyond the external walls of that building

(b) be of good quality composition and compaction providing suitable ground stability in the event offlooding.

21 Filling for ancillary purposes such as driveways, acc€ss tracks, vehicle parking areas and crop rowsshould be:

(a) limited to a maximum of 100 millimetres above natural ground level

(b) no more than 5 metres wide.

Bushfire

22 The following bushfire protection principles of developmeni control apply to development of land identifiedas Generaf , Medium and High bushfire risk areas as shown on the Bushfire Protection Area BPA Maps -Bushfire Risk.


24

Development in a Bushffre Protection Area should be in accordance wilh those provisions o-f the

Minist;fs Code: IJndeftaking devatopment in Eushfira Protection Areas that are d6lgnated as mandatory

for Development Plan Consent purposes'

Buildings and sfuctures should be located away from areas that pose an unacceptable bushfire rlsk as a

result of one or more of the following:

(a) vegetatlon cover comprising tres and/or shrubs

(b) poor access

(c) rugged tenaln

25

(e) inability to provide an adequate supply of water for fire flghtlng purposes.

Resldental, tourist accommodailon and other habitable buildings should:

(a) be slted on the flatter portlon of allotnents and avoid steep slopes, especially.upper slopes' nanow' ridge crests and the lops of nanow gullies, and slopes wlth a northerly or westerly aspec't

(b) be sited ln areas with low buslrfire hazard vegetatlon and set back at least 20 metres from e{stinghazardous vegetalion

(c) have a dedicated and accesslble water supply available at all times for flre fighting.

bdensions to existing bulldings, outbuildlngs and other ancillary struc'tures should be sited and

oonstruc,ted using miterials to minimise the threat of ffre spread to residenlial, tourist accommodation and

other habitable buildings in the evenl of bushfire'

Buildings and sfuctures should be designed and configured to reduce the impacl of bushfire through

using Jlmple deslgns that reduce the potendal for trapplng buming debris agalnst ihe bullding or sfucture,or between the ground and building floor level in the case of lransportable buildings.

Land division for residentlal or lourist accommodation puposes wlthin areas of high bustfire risk should

be limited to those areas specifically set aside for these uses.

Where land dMslon does ccur it should be designed lo:

(a) minlmise the danger to residents, other occupants of buildings and fire fighting personnel

(b) minimlse the extent of damage to buildings and other property during a bushffre

(c) ensure each allotment contains a sultabte building site that is locatd at\ray from vegetation that

would pose an unacceptable dsk in the event of bushfire

(d) ensure provision of a fire hazard separatlon zons isolating residen al allotments fr.om_areas lhat pose' ' an unacceptabte bushffre rlsk by containing the allotrnents wlthln a perimeter mad or through other

means lhat achieve an adequate separaton.

Vehicle access and ddveways to properlles and publlc roads created by land dlvlslon should be designed

and consfucted to:

(a) facilitate safe and effective operational use for fire fighting and other emergency vehicles and

residentg

(b) provide for twoway vehicular access between areas of ffre risk and the nearest public road.

29

30


31 Olive orchards should be located and develooed in a manner that minimises their ootential to fuelbustrfires.

$alinity

32 Development should not increase the potential for, or result in an increase in, soil and water salinity.

33 Preservation, maintenance and restoration of locally indigenous plant species should be encouraged inareas affected by dry land salinity.

34 lrrigated horticulture and pasture should not increase groundwater-induced salinity.

Acid Suffate Solls

35 Development and activities, including excavation and filling of land, that may lead to the disturbance ofpotential or actual acid sulfate soils€€€€tr€r€{€/ should be avoided unless such disturbances are managed in a way that effectively avoidsthe potential for harm or damage to any of the following:

(a) the marine and estuarine environment

(b) natural water bodies and wetlands

(c) agricultural or aquaculture activities

(d) buildings, structures and infrastructure

(e) public health.

36 Development, including primary production, aquaculture activities and infrastruc'ture, should not proceedunless it can be demonstrated that the risk of releasing acid water resulting from the disturbance of acidsulfate soils is minimal.

llate Gontamanation

37 Development, including land division, should not occur where site contamination has occurred unless thesite has been assessed and remediated as necessary to ensure that it is suitable and safe for theproposed use.

Gontainment of Chemlcal and Hazardous Materlals

38 Hazardous materials should be stored and contained in a manner that minimises the risk to Dublic healthand safety and the potential for water, land or air contamination.

39 Development that involves the storage and handling of hazardous materials should ensure that these arecontained in designaled areas that are secure, readily accessible to emergency vehicles, impervious,protected from rain and stormwater intrusion and other measures necessary to prevent:

(a) discharge of polluted water from the site

(b) contamination of land

(c) airborne migration of pollutants

(d) potential interface impacts with sensitive land uses.


Landsllp

40 Development, including associated cut and ffll acflvities, should not lead to an Increased danger from land

surface instablllty or lo the potential of landslip occunlng on the slte or on sunounding land.

41 Development on steep slopes should promote the rBtenlion and replan ng of vegetration as a means of

stabllislng and reducing lhe possibility of sudace movsment or disturbance.

42 Development in areas susceptible to landslip should:

(a) incorporate split level designs to mlnlmlse cutting Into the slope

(b) snsure that cut and fill and heights of faces are mlnimised

(c) ensure cut and fill is supported with englnoered retalning walls or are battered to approprlate grades

(d) control any eroslon that will increase the gradient of the slope and decrease stablllty

(e) ensure the siting and operafon of an effuenl drainage ffeld doss not contribute to landsllp

(0 provide drainage measures to ensure surface stabillty is nol cornpromised

(g) ensure nafural drainage llnes are noi obstructed.



Adelaide Plains CouncilAttachment B


OBJEGTIVES

1 Dovelopment locat€d and designed to minlmise adverse impac't and conflict belw€en land uses.

2 Protecl community health and amenity from adverse lmpacts of development.

3 Pmtecl deslred land uses trom the encroachment of incompatible development

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT GONTROL

Development should not delrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable

inierferenco through any of the following:

(a) lhe emission of effluenl, odour, smoke, fumes, dust or other airbome pollutants

(b) noise

(c) vibradon

(d) electrical interfsr€nce

(e) light spill

(f) glare

(g) houIs of operation

(h) traffic impacts.

Devglopmenl should be sited and designed lo minimise negative impacts on existing and potentialfuture

land uses desired in the locality.

Development adjacent to a R6ldondal Zons or residor ial area withln a Tournshlp Zone ohould be

designed lo minlmise overlooklng and overshadowing of adjacent dwellings and private open spac€.

Residental devetopment adjaoent to non-residEntial 2onc and land uses should be located, design€d

and/or sited to protec:t resldenls from potental adverse impacls from non-residsnilal actlviflea.

Sensilive uses llkely to conflict with ths continuation of larrvfully exisilng developmsnts and land uses

desirod for the zone should be deslgned to minimise negative impacls.

Non-resldenlial development on land abutting a rssidential zone should be deslgned to minlmise noiso

impacts to achieve adequate levels of compatibility between oxisting and proposed uses.

Nolse Generating Actlvltles7 Developmsnt ihat emits noise (other lhan music noise) should includo noise attenuation measures

lhat achieve the relevant Environment Protectlon (t lolse) Poilcy crlreria when assessed at the

nearest edsting noise sensitive premises.


8 Development wilh the potgntial to €mlt signncant nolse (8.9. lndustry) should Incorporate nolseattenuation measuras that prev€nt noiso ftom causing unroasonable intsrforence with the amenityol no|6e sensruve orem|ses.

. I Outdoor areas (such as beer gardens or dlning areas) associaled wlth llc€nssd premlsc should bedesignsd or sit€d to minimise adverse noise impacts on adjacent existing or future noiee sensitivedevolooment

10 Development proposing music should include noise attenuation measurss that achieve the followlngdesired noise levels:

Nolas l6vol aaaoBament locatlon Dosltod nolEo l6vol

L€ss than 8 dB above the level of background noiso (Lm, ranrn) in anyAdlacent exislino nois€ sensrffue octavo band ofthe sound Ep€cirumdetalopment prdprty boundary

and

Less than_5 dB(A)-abve lhe level-of background.nolse (l-Aeo,rsmh) forthe overall (sum of all octave bands) A-wolghted level

Lgss than 65 dB (Lin) at 63Hz and 70 dB(Un) In all other oclave bandsAdjacent tand property boundary of the sound spectnnn

Less than 8 dB abovo the level of backgmund noise (Lso.r&'dn) in anyoctave band of the sound speclrum anil5 dB(A) overall (sum of all 'ociave bands) +welghted l'evel

11 Norse ano vibratron sensrtrve develoDment locateo withrn 180 m€tres of a rail corndor should be srted. desrqnedand constructed lo minimise noise and vibration impacts from the operation of thal rail line

Alr Qualittr

12 Developmonl with the potonlial lo emit hannful or nuisanca€Eneratng air polluton should Incorporateair pollution control measures to prevent harm lo human heallh or unreasonable interferenoe wilh iheamenity of sensitve uses wllhin the locamy.

13 Chimneys or exhaust flues associated with commercial development (including cafes, roslaurants andfasl food outlets) should be designod lo ensure thoy do not caus6 a nuisance or heallh concems tonearby sensl0ve rec€lvers b),:

(a) incorporating appropriate treatment technology before exhaust omisslons are reloas€dto the atmo8phere

(b) ensurlng that ths locatlon and design of chlmneys or exhaust flues maximlses dispersion andtakes inlo accounl the location of nearby sensitive uses.


Rural Intedace

14 The potential for adverse impacts resulting from rural development should be minimised

by:

(a) nol locating horticulture or inlensive animal keeping on land adlacent to townships

(b) maintaining an adequate separation between horticulture or intensive animal

Keeping and townships, other sensitive uses and, where desirable, other forms of

Primary Production.

15 Traffic movement, spray drift, dust, noise, odour and the use of frost fans and gas guns

tland uses.

16 Existing primary production and mineral extraction should not be prejudiced bythernappropriate encroachment of sensitive uses such as urban development'

l7 Development that is adiacent to land used for primary production (wilhin eitherthe zone

or adjacent zones) should include appropriate setbacks and vegetative plantings

designed to minimise the potenlial impacts of chemical spray drift and other impacts

associated with primary production.

1B New urban development should provide a buffer of at least 40 melres wide (inclusive of

any fuel break, emergency vehicle access or road) separating urban and rural activities.

19 Developmenl located within 300 metres of facilitie$ for the handling, transportation and

storage of bulk commodities should:

(a) not prejudice the continued operation of those facilities

(b) b6 located, designed and developed having regard to the potential envimnmental impact arising from

the ooeration of!uch lacilities and the potential extended hours of operation'

20 OB€n i€i.l+o{f€{ilt{l+€-Hlv€l+i€g regr+a+ +}€r++n1-spr+yrR9 5 o'rld nel be l€€€+€r]+v+thm'

€+ +4Q+lerFe€J}€*t+h€ f€a rest sr{{a€e.,*ae.r+ twle+geepetrlal:€*fe+ +{r+efFl+t+e1f+i

iir+ 18O J]+ek€s e+l€F+bas€d aqla€Hl+r+1+€ff+ ass€€€]ed co|].Jr€s€|{s

ic i :,0O +}}€*€s €+.+ d€+i+l€d a{r.:j zor}ed+Ans}lrF- s€l++er9€'q+ or lrrha++?+€3

(€+ 30g m€+resj+{J{tr-r+{;het}-€{fi€€.flibfi€ rnstrfs++e+}. €{ +fh€{ b+rtld+ne €tesrgrred€fl+Rq{rry {€r h{r+a

e*rp3tlO+l

€+ 50l}}etr€s of natlve v€€€{alieP€{ aF 3+ea g+€ater thar 5I }e{:lar€'s

21 New primary production dev€lopment (includir€ open field and enclosed horticulture) should be sited

to ensure that the new land use does not dolrimentally impac,t upon €stablished primary production

uses by way of ils normal day-today activiti€s (including chemical spraying)'




Attachment F


Refer to the Map Reference Tables for a list of the maps that relate to this zone'

OBJEGTIVE$

1 The long term continuation of primary producUon.

2 Economically productive, efficient and environmentally sustainable primary production'

Allotments of a size and configuration that promote the efficient use of land for primary

production.

Protection of primary production from encroachment by incompatible land uses and protection ot

scenic qualities or rural landscapes.

nccommodation of wind farms anri ancillary development

Protection ol rural support infrastructure lor the bulk hanrlling storage and transportation of farm

commocjities situated at Long Plains and Adelaide Road (sauth west of the Mallala Township)

Development that contributes to the d€sired character of the zone.

DEEIRED CIIARAGTER

This zone covers the maiority of the council ar€a. exclucJing the lownships and several special zones

Farming activities are characterised by irrigated horticulture to the south of the council area and

livestock grazing and cereal cropplng in other areas ,,vhich are generally farmed on relatively large land

holdings. Other land uses include intensrve animal keeping, rural value adding the livestock markets

bulk grain storage. a major landfill. composting. and bulk grain storage. This zone will conlinue to

accommodate grazing, cropping and intensive animal keeping And aclively en0Ourage the grOwth Of

Intonsive horticullural d€velopmont including glasshouse and greenhous€ development and associated

value adding wttere able to readily access suitable fit-for'pumose water. This zone will also

accommodate the development of abatloirs, meat processing, cold storage. and other forms of

compatible .levelopment. which contribute to agricultural procjuctivity and the rural character and are

located outside of land subiect to flooding

A proliferation of intensive development and occupation of the zon€ by incompatible land uses may

threaten its proper functioning and render the rural landscape susceptible to competing demands and

undesirable change. To maintain the agricultural importance and stability ol the zone, it is vital that the

size of the land holdings is not significanlly reduced, or dwelling densities increased, and that future

pr€ssur€s for development in the zon€ will not result in the conversion of agricultural land to less

productive uses.

The zone abuts the townships of Two Wells. Mallala, and Dublin, and encircles the settlements of

windsor and Redbanks ancl it is important that farming activities including chemical spraying are

managed to minimise impacts on those townships and settlements

Rural-based activities will continue to op€rat€ and expand, provided sound management techniques


can be demonslrated, and ths long-term productivity of the land is ensur€d. Opportunities for thediversification of the rural sector will be expanded and developed in appropriate locations. Value-addingindustries will be deveJoped to complement and expand upon the existing rural activities within theregion.

Although some of the lancl has lorrg been cleared for agricultural production and grazing, significant tracts ofnative and other significant vegetation slill remain The small areas of bushland scattered throu!,hout thedistrict. notably those located on sand riclges in the eastern portion of the zone and the landscapes abuttingand adjacent to the banks of the Light River and Gawler River arc particularly in'rportant features nccdingprolection These features will be preserved and further enhanced by supplenrentary planting

Wind farnrs and ancillary development suclr as substations, maintenance sheds. access roads andconnecting por,ver-lines (including to the National Electricity Grid) are envisaged withrn the zone and constitutea component of the zone's desired character

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Land Use

1 The following forms of development, or combination thereof, are envisaged in the zone:

. bulk handling and storage facilityI commercial forestry. dairy farming. farming. horticulturer intsnslve animal keedng' tourisl accommodation (including through the diversification of existing farming aclivities and

@nversion of farm buildings). winci farms and ancillary development. wind monitoring mast and ancillary development

2 Development listed as non-complying is generally inappropriate.

3 Industry and warehousing should only be developed if it supports primary production, processing, storageand distribution of local primary produce or products produced on the same site, and should be developedwhere:

(a) it has a direct relationship with primary production

(b) it is unlikely to limit or inhibit the use ot adioining land for primary production

(c) the particular upe requires a site in proximity to a particular natural resource or other product ormaterials sourced from the locality

(d) it will not result in the alienation of land or water resources identified as significant for primaryproduction or ecological reasons

(e) the use would be inappropriate within a township.

4 Wind farms and ancillary develol)ment should be located in areas which provide opporlunity for lrarvestingof wind and effrcient generation of electricity and may therefore be sited

(a) n visually pronrinent localions

(b) closer to roads than envisageci by generic setback policy


A du,elling should only be developed if:

(b)

(c)

the bcation of the durelling witl not hhibit the continuation of fanrllng, oth€r primary producffon or

odrer de\retopment that l8'in keeping with the provblonB of th€ zon€

it is located mors lhan:

(ii)

(d) it does not resrft in more than ons dwelllng per allotment i

(e) it is setback at least 40 m€lres from allotment boundaries.

6 Toudst accommodation should not be:

{a) converted to dywllings and should be desQned to predude the convercion of buildings into dwelllngs'-' such as through sha-red faciliiies, Common-utility services, grouped accommodation and/ol shared

parklrE

(b) located within 300 metres from a bulk handling facility.

7 Ashopshouldbe:

(a) Ancillary to Brimary production or proc€ssing uses or lourist accommoddion or olher toudst

d6v€lopmont

(b) tocatsd on the same site as lhe primary usa

I Slock slaughter works should only occur where the site:

1a1 is locatedfthe stock saleyards near Dublin

(b) is located a minimum distance of 2 kilometres from any township, settlement or Deferred ljrbanZone

(c) is located not less than 500 metres ftom a rural dwelling not associated with the developffiinl

(d) is setback at leasl 200 metres frsm a public road

(e) is not located on land affected by flooding from the Light or Gawler Rivers

(f) is on an allotment with frontage to a sealed road having close and safe access to an arterial road

(g) can be provided with the required physical inftastructure. including water supply, powel and effluent

treatment.

I10


11

12

13

14

15

Form and Gharacter

Developmenl should not be undertaken unless ft is consistenttvilh the deshed characterfor the zone.

Devglopmenl should not occur within 500 metres of a nalional park, conservation park, wildemessprotection area or significant stands of native vegelation if it will increase the potential for, or result in, thespread of pest plants.

Buildrng development should be located, designed and sufficiently elcvated having regard to the floodpotential of the land, particularly when located in proxrmity to the Light River and Gawler River

Development should provide an access way of at least 3 metres wide that provides access for emergencyvehicles to the rear of the allotment.

Buildings should primarily be limited to farm, horticulture and anirnal keeping buildings, a detacheddwelling associated with primary production on the allotmenl and resideniial outbuildings that are:

(a) grouped together on the allotment and setback from allotment boundaries to minimise the visualimpact of buildings on the landscape as viewed from public roads

(b) screened from public roads and adjacent land by existing v€getation or landscapsd buffers.

16 Sheds, garages and outbuildings should be setback fronr allotment boundaries in accordirnce with tlretollowinq

Pgramster

Minirnum setbaok from a prirnary road boundarywhere the f loor area rs 54 square metres or lessand/or the vertical wali height measures no morethan 2.7 metres

Valrr

For an outbuilding ancl shed: 15 metres or thesame dastance of the existing associated dwelling(whichever is the qreater)

For a garage attached to a dwelling trehind anypart of the building lrne ol the dwelling to which itis ancillary tlrat faces the principal street

l\4inimum settlack from a primary road boundarywhere the floor area is greater than 54 squaremetres ancl/or the verticalwall heiqht exceeds 2.7ntetres

35 metres or the same dislance of the existingassociated dwelling (whichever is the greater)

Minimum setback from a secondary roadDOunoary

8 nletres plus 3 metres for every additronal 500millimetres above 2.7 metres of wall heighlmeasured trom the natrrral qlound level

Mrnimunr setback tronr side boundary8 metres lllus I metfe for every additional 500millimetres abaue 2.7 metres ()f wall heightnreasured fronr the natural gr ourrd level

Mrninrurn sett)ack trom rear bOundary 1 2 metres

.17 Nol tnore than one dwelling should be erected on any allotnrent of less than 80 hectares unlessl(a) lhe adclitional dwelling is to be located on an operating farn]


illi Lt is r'tecrts-sa]rV for the atccomnrodatir)n of i.r person such ils i'l llli-:lnilgel wolk€lr ()r a fc atl!e v'!ho is lll

i0j

full time enrllloynrent on the f:lrnl

It rs locate(l tn reasrjn:hrle proxim:lt io the exlsting rln'el irrrl i.rtrrl rlot':ner;tori to the sarlre seryiLles;:ls

lhe e.xistrnll ( llvellinq: and

3 sepairate aliotn'lent is nol requlfe(l

Land Division

18 Land division, including boundary realignment, should only occur where at least one of the following

it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation

it will promote economically productive, efficient and sustainable primary production

19 Land division is appropriate within Horticulture Policy Area 3 only when all of the following are achieved:

(a) it will not result in an allotment wilh an area of less than I hectares

/b) it will not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medium or High Flood Hazard

Risk Areas as shown on Overlap Maps - Development Consfralnls

(c) it is servic€d with guarante€d water supply of sulficient quantity and quality to suslain a genuinely

commercial horticultural development.

(d) it results in no material adverse impacts on downstream property owners, in terms of water flow and

discharge of pollutants.

20 Land division is appropriate outside of Hortrcultural Policy Area 3 only when all of the following are

achieved:

(a) it will not result in an allotment with an area of less than 40 hectares

(b) it will not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medlum or High Flood Hazard

Risk Areas as shown on Overlap Maps - Development Constraints.

Refer to the lvlap Reference Table for a list of the maps that relate to this policy area.

OBJECTIVES

1 A policy aroa primarily for horticulture.

Z fhe establishment of appropriately scaled industries for washing, Proc€ssing and packaging primary

produce, and sorvicing and supporting horticulture.

3 Development thal contributes to the desired character of the Policy area'

(a)

(b)


DESIRED CTIARACTER

A threat to the long-term economic viability of the policy area is the conversion of horticultural land toresidential/rural living activities. These activilies are incompatible with horticulture production (e.9. due tonoise, spray drift etc.) and often raise lhe cost of production for those remaining. Land division will onlyoccur where the allotment is serviced with a guaranteed water supply of sufficient quantity and quality tosustain a genuinely commercial horticultural development. Dwellings within the policy area will only occurif they are associated with sufficient buffers (landscape and/or separation distances) from existing orfuture intensive horticulture and the dwellings are directly associated with an existing demonstratedconnection with a commercial horticultural activity.

To realise lhe area s full potential for horticulture development will require the provision ofadequate water supply, the development of sealed road linkages, plus adequate power supply.

Portions of the zone are subject to inundation by floodwaters from the Gawler River and LightRiver. New development will not materially increase the potential for on and off-site flooding.Buildings and structures will be located and designed to have regard to flooding. The zone will bedeveloped in a way that minimises potential arlenity impacts on sensitive land uses.


Land Use

1. The following forms of development are envisaged in the policy area:

. farmingo horticulture. light industry and service industry associated with the processing, packaging and distribution of

producee small-scale tourist development in association with wineries, farms and local heritage places. wind farm and ancillary developmentr wind monitoring mast and ancillary development.

2 Retiail sales of goods produced and processed within the policy area are appropriate providingsuch sales remain ancillary and incidenlal to the principal horticultural, farming or processing useof the land.

Form and CharactGl

3. Developmenl should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for thezone and th€ policy area.

4 The keeping of dogs and the erection of kennels should not be undertaken unless.

(a) dog keeping yards, kennels and associated exercise areas are more than 10 metres from anyboundary of the site and 100 metres from the nearest dwelling and outside the site

(b) dogs are kept for the private en1oyment of the land owner or for breeding, training or showing anddo not exceed 5 doos in number


(c) kennels are fully insulated with appropriate materials to all roofing and walls, and with openings

orientated to minimise noise impact nuisance to residential use

{d) no nuisance such as from noise, dust or odour is likely to be crealed

(e) the site is screened by perimeter landscaping

(f) an adequate exercise area is provided

(g) all yards are fenced and provided wlth secure gates.

5 No more than 2 horses should be kept on an allotment, provided that a properly designed and

constructed stable and attached day yard is located on the land to accommodate each horse.

6 Stables should be setback:

(a) 50 metres from the nearest dwelling outside the site

(b) 15 metres from the principal road boundary or the same distance as the existing associated

dwelling, whichever is the greater

(c) 10 metres setback from side road boundary and side boundaries

(d) 10 metres setback from rear boundary.

7 No new loam pits should be opened in the area adjoining the Gawler River and further loam

extraction should be contained within existing pits.

PROCEDURAL iIATTERS

Gomplying Development

complying devefopments are prescribed in schedule 4 of lhe Development Regulations 2008.

f n addition, except for development sited on an allotment containing a place identified in Table Mal/2 - State

Heritaae ptaces. the following forms of development are designated as complying subiect lo the conditions

contained in the table below:

Form of Dowtopmsnt Condltlons fot complylng dsvslopmont

Hortioulturo(includingint€nsivoProduction Provided:tn an encbs;d, aftificlat environirent) (a) th€ development does not incorporate a building or structure located

within Horticufture Policy Area 3 within the Mediurt or High Ftood Hazard Risk Areas as shown on

Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

(b) where the proposal includss the conslruction of groenhous3 /glasshouse structures that are not greater than 20'000 square

m€treg in gross leasable area.

(c) the development proposal is accompanied by a report design and

management plan prepared by a suitably qualified engineer which

demonstrates that both stormwater and wasleweter will be entirely

managed on-site having regard to predicted flooding (refer toDevelopment Constrainls Overlay Maps) and existing infrastructure

capacity.


(d) where the development includes potential noise sources (e.9.audible bird scering devices, frosl fans, generators, fans) theapplication is accompanied by a report, design and managementplan prepared by a suitably qualiJied acoustic engineer whichdemonstrates lhat the develoDment will meet EPA environmenlalnoise policies.

(e) any proposed buildings and structures are located at a distancegrBater than '100 melres lrom any habilable building not associatedwith the use of the land.

(f) development has direct vehicle access from an all-weather publicroad to the reasonable satisfaction of th€ planning authority.

(g) all buildings are set back at least 40 metres trom lhe development'sallotment boundaries.

(h) the development does not involve the growinq of oliv€s.

Non-complying DevelopmentDevelopment (including building work, a change in the use of land, or division of an allotment) involvingany of the following is non-complying:

Form of Dovolopment Excapdonr

Elcetr'l where :l ol the follo,,ving are saii.;fieC(ar I rl rS less lhdn 6 n'retres In lre ghl

Advertisement and/or advertising hoard ing (br ilas oo nrore lran Ssquare meLres i.ital a,:tve,lcenranl a.eabrrhSldes rllclUS''ie

L, rL cloes nol flSsn or move

Amusemenl machine centre

Any form o{ dev€lopmeni w thr. t,e Higr, Erqgpl 16r,Flood Hazatd Risk Ate€, as shown on th€ (a) buildings, struclures or earthworks required as part offloodOverlay Maps - DevelopnEnt Constraints protection works associated with a regionalflood mitigation scheme

(b) farming(c) horticulture other lhan inlensive production in an enclosed, artificial

environmonl(d) recreation area

Bus depol

B -s stalror'

Caravan par[.

Community Centre

Consulting room E.'.r:c:l-rl 6 ' s1e111.3iy crrnsJllr[g rogfi olrere located '!'thin lhe Low Flood

Hazad Risk Area as sf,olrn on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

Delence eslabirshnrenl

Dog track

Ercepl 3 del3ched cwe,l rg r'/her€ I 3ch eves the follow ng(ar rl rs r,ol locaied \r',,rtlrrn the High Ftood Hazald R sk ltea 3s sf own

on Overlay Maqs - Development Constraints. aNl

(b) 11 does n01 rcqu e a.!ess to t bv rgad across land n'rthrI the HighFlood Hezad Risk Afea, ,r: srro'.Jr art Overlay Maps -Developme nt Conslrainls a t'. i

Dwelling


hecl€rgs in aroa; or

1,r r outskje of Horllculture Pollcy Area 3, it salislies (a) and (b)

E)i,:cpt wnefe (a) or (b) is sJtrslred(a) it is located within the Low Frood Hazard Risk Area and:

(i) the fencing maintains a mesh size greater than 100 millimetresbetween ground level and 300 millimetres: or

(ii) the fence is located within '10 metres of a dwelling or otherbuilding.

L, ) it is located within lhe iltedtum or High Flood Hazard Risk Areasand:rr) 11 rs a pQsl afd wlre fente |i th a nresh sr:e ilrealer t..n lOi-l

rll nielres: /if

High Flood Hazard Risk Area as shor.,n jr .\'irere t licr rlates t].e F,ior'rs oa !f p.rblc nfr.lsl(i,lirre ior flcod m trqallon or

cr Overlay Maps - Developmenl

Fer'rce u1, ir r' ant oI lhe Flood HazardRisk A/eas. as sholvn an Overlay Maps -De ve I op me nt C on stra ints

f iocd rrarraqernent iruiposisConstraints

Fuel DeDot

Except wher6 the location for the growing of olives achieves (a), (b) or (c):(a) at leasl500 metres from all ofthe following:

Horticulture involving the growing of olives

(i) e Nalional Park(ii) a Conservation Patk(iii) a Wilderness Pmtection Area(iv) the €dge of a substantially iniacl stratum of native vegetation

greater than 5 hectares in area50 metres from the edge of a substantially intact stratum ol nativevegetation 5 hectares or less in areaAl leasl 500 nrelres fionr €t|-r€r cl ihe la!o,,r no :ones, r) Coastal Conservation Zoner) Conservation Zone

(b)

(c)

Hospital

Hotel

lndoor recreation cenlre

Intenslvg animel k€edng

Elcept r.,here (a) 3nd (b) are satrst ec(a) tho land is locatod outsidB Horliculture Policy Araa 3b) the land is located outside the Hlgh Flood Hazard Risk Area' as

(a) the land division will not resull in an Increase in the n umber ofallotments wholly within the |tedium or HUh Flood Hezed RiskAreas, as shown on Overlay Maps - Development Const.atnts: and

(b) the land division is required to facilitate the provision of public

infrastructure for ilood mitigation or flood rnanagement purposes; or

(c) all allotments resulting irom the division have an area of at least 8heclares within Horticulture Policy Area 3; or

(d) all allotments resuiting from thedivision havean area olal least40heclares where located outside of Horticulture Policy Area 3

ll.n -.

Motor Repair Stetion


Molor racing or lesting venue

Nurslng home

Office

Except where it is ancillary to and in association with primary production ortourism and it achieves all of lhe following:

(a) it is located outside of land identified as berng subject to lhe ,I€&umo( ,''g,r, nood tlaz*d Rlsk lraas

(b) it has a gross leasable floor area ot 50 square metres ot less

Pctrol filling rtatlon

Plec€ of worship

Prescribed mining operationsExcept where located more than 250 melres from lhe centre line of the GawlerRiver or Lighi Riwr

PrB€chool

Ptimary school

Raoecourse

Residontial fl at buildirE

Resldenlial palk

Road Tran6Do Termlnal

S€rvic€ lrade Dr€misss

Shop or group 9f shops

Specral Industry

Except where is achreves all of the following(a) it is located outside of land identifled as being subject to the itedurt

ot Hlgh Flood Hszerd Rlsk ArTg,s:(b) it is ancillary to and in association with primary productron (including

a wrnerv)

Darrler between the operationalareas and lhe underlying soil and groundwaler on a site that iswholly o{ partially within a water protectron areathe operatron rs locat€d on a sile with ground slopes no grealer lhan6 per centthe opsration rs locat€d a minimum drstance ol 100 metres trom anydam. river. creek. nalural watercourse. channel or borethe operation is not located on land subjecl to a 1-in-100 yearaverage return interval flood event, or on land located wathin 100metres of the identitied as being subiecl to floodrng in a 1rn-100year average return interval eventthe operation is located on land with a depth to subsurface seasonaltidal or permanent groundwater of 2 metres or greaterthe land to be used for the oDeratron saiisfies al least one of thefollowrng'(i) is located at least a dislance of 500 metres from the nearesl

sensitive receptor(ii) the operation employs an In-vessel or fully enclosed

composting sysiem where a lesser distance lo lhe nearestsensitive receotor maV b€ approoriate

(b)

{c)

(d)

1e)

(f)


Stadium

StoreE)icept where ?ncllary lo alld assooaled with an envrsaged land use of the

zc ne

Supporled accommodalion

WarehouseE.xcepl lvhere ancrllary to a.d 3ssociated with an ellv saged land use oI lhe

lone

Waste reception, storage, treatmenl ordlsDosal

Exc€pt "h6t it ts an organic wssl€ plocsssing facillty locabd otdlti& of

Horflculhra Pollcy A'ro 3 and all of the following are satisfied'

lal an imoe.vious leachate barrier ls provlded between the operallonal

wholly or partraLly wrthin a waler protecllon area

the operatron rs localed ol-r a site'.!ith ground slopes no gleater lhan

6 per centthe operation is iqcated a mlnlmum distance of 100 metres fronl alry

ajanr rver. creek, natLrral watercourse channel cr horelhe operaticn rs r'lot located on land sublecl lo a 1 -'n-100 year

average refltn nlerval flood evenl or on and lccated wrthln 100

met.ei of the rdenlrlied as being sublect to floodrng rrr a 1 n 10C

year averaele relurn nleTval eventthe operation s ocaled orr larld "! ln a depth io strbsurface seascnal

lrdal or pefmarent groundwaler ol2 metres cr gre3ter

lhe lan.i tc be used for lhe oFeratlon sallsfres al least one Df the

ro low ng.I ,s located al east a distance oi 5'.10 metres froi-r'l ihe nea'es1

sensrtrve receptorrit tie ope!'ation employs an in'vessel or tuliy enclosed

compostrng system vvhere a lesser dislanae lc lhe'reareslsensitive receptor rnav be approprlate

Wrecking ),ard

PuDlte t{oUnce$onCat€ories of public notification are prescribed in Schedule 9 of the Devalopment Regulations 2AO8'

In addition, the following forms of development, or any combination thereof (except where lhe

development is classified as non-complying), are designated:

ibi

lar

lo)

rel

lll

CommerclalHorticullure

Forestry except where located withltlPolicy Area 3.

Bulk handllng except wtler€ locetedHorliculture Pollcy Aroa 3.

Farming Tourist accommodatlon

Hortlculture (excludi|l g the growing of otives)-where all of Hortculturs (oxdudfig ths gtu,vlng ofit b asslgn€d Categpry 1 .

exce$ rtn€rc

the following are satisfled:

(a) no dam audible bird scaring devlce or frosl fan

rr'ill be used(b) no planting ls proposed within 300 metres of a

dwelling unrelated to use ot the subiect land

{c) no temoval of significant vegetalion is ploposed(d) the following separatron distances are

maintained betvveen production {cultLvaled )


areas which will be subject to r€gular chemicalspmying and a sensitive receptor not associaledwith the horticulture development:

aouaculture(ii) 300 metres from a dwelling unrelated

to the use of the subject land, or olhersensitive land uses.

Wind farms and ancillary development such as substations,maintenance sheds, access roads and connecting power-lines (including to the National Electricity Gdd) where thebase of all wind turbines is located at least 2000 metresfrom:

(a) an existing dwelling or tourist accommodationthat is not associated with the wind farm

(b) a proposed dwelling or tourist accommodation torwhich an operable development plan consentexists

(c) the boundaries of any Airfield, Airport, Centre,Community, Fringe, Hisloric Conservation. Homelndustry, Living, Mixed Use, Residential,Settlement. Tourist, Township or Urban Zon€,Policy fuea 3 or Precinct or any Heritage Area(including within the area of an adioiningDeveloDment Plan).

Horse keeping. including stables, involving a maximum ot 2 Wind monitoring mast and ancillary developmenthorses on an allotmenl and where any associated stablesare setback:

(a) 50 metres lrom the nearest dwelling outside thezone

(b) '15 metres from the principal road boundary or thesame distance as the existing associateddwelling. whrchever is the greater

(c) 10 metres from a secot'rdary road trontage(d) 10 metres trom side and rear boundaries

Lighl Indusw and seryice induslry which involves lheproces8ing, paokaging and distribution of produceassociat€d with the u3€ of the subiect land

Light lndustry and service induslry which involv€8 theprocessing, packaging and distribution of produce whennot associated with ths use of the subiect land


19 Octob€r 2017

SAWRef 00/06060

Megan LewisPlanning OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box l8MALLALA SA 5502

@ snwaterSOUTH AUSTRALIANWATER CORPOFAT1ON

$ lryater House250 vlctorla Square / TambnyanggaAdelalde South Austalla 5000GPO Bo( 1751Adelalde South Ausfdla 500Telephone +61 8 1300 650 950ABN 69 336 525 019

DearMegan,

Re: Nortiem Food Bowl Protecdon Areas Development Plan Amendment @PA)

I refer to your email dated 28 August 2017 seeking our comments on tho above DPA.

State Gov€rnment-funded economic modelling has projected sipificant economic beirefisfrom the Northern Adelaide irigation Scherne (NAIS), includi"g private investment of $1.1

billion, creation of more than 3,700 new jobs at peak employmelrt and a contibution to Gross

State Product of $578 million each year.

Early adoption of the DPA is critically important to facilitate thoe economic outcomes.

with respect to your comments about the Northem Adelaide lrrig:ation sche,m.o (NAIS) on

pages 7, 72, 13, aad I 7, I would like to clarift as follows:

In the first instance the Nonhe,m Adelaide lrrigation Scheme (NAIS) will deliver an

additional 12GL of high quality recycled water annually. NAIS is cunently in the desipstage. Water is expected to be available to users from early 2019. As dernand grows,

additional capacity will be added.

NAIS water is best described as high quality recycled wat€r suitable for commercial foodproduction. NAIS water is climate-independ€nt, and will be made available under long-term

contracts (45+ yean) on a stable price path.

While this water is available "for irrigation purposes," including field-based horticulture and

broadacre farrning, its ideal use would be for high-value proteoted cropping in advanc€d

greenhouses, for high-value poennial crops such as almonds and wine gnpes, and forintensive animal husbandry suoh as poultry productior and feedlots.

With respocl to your comments about the Virginia Pipeline Sche,me (VPS) on page 7, I wouldlike to clarifu as follows:

GoYqrnmontof South Australla


@ sRwatet

SOUfi AUSTFAUANWAIER CORPORATION

The Virginia Pipeline SchEme (VPS) reaches tle southern fringes of the Council area. TheScheme is presently at capacity in summer, with some winter capaoity available, While SAWater has discussed the possibility of expanding the VPS with some interested partia, at thisstage no plaoaieg bas been initiated.

SA Water suggests that it may be helpful for the Counoil to rwiew in detail rhe boundarybstwo€n the proposed Horticulture Policy Area and the existing Coastal Conservation PolioyArea, delineated on Maps MaVl-MaVg.

SA Water has no deire to challenge the status of land that has high conservation values, orthat is being regenerated for environmental objectives.

However, any flato saline land that has low oonservation values and is usuitable for field-based or b,roadacre pnmary production may be ideal for advanced agribusinosses. Advanoedgreenhouses, feedlotso and other food production facilities require a large, flat surface.Furtlermorg soil salinity is not relevant for facilities that are not soil-based. While traditionalsoil-based horticultwe agribusinesses would not be able to use this land, advancedagribusinesses may be able to put it to good use. If the land does not need to be included inthe Coastal Conservation Policy Area for oths reasons, the Council could consider includingit in the Horticultme Policy Area.

Our general comments regarding new dwelopments or redevelopments are provided below,

SAWaterPlanning

r SA Water undertakes water security and infrastructure planning that considers the longerterm strategic direction for a systfii. That planning seeks to develop a framework thatensures resources and infrastucture are managed efficiently and have the capacity tomeet customer requiremerts into the future. The information contained in the DPAdocument regarding future re-zoning and land development will be incorporated inSA Water's planning process.

Protection of Source Water

r Developrnent/s shall have no delaerious effects on the quality or quantify of source water,or the natural environmmts that rely on ihis water. In particular, the following conditionsshall apply:

- Landfill shall be outside of Water Protection Zones;

- Landfill area to include leachate colleotion facilities;- Effluent disposal systerns (inoluding leach drains) to be designed and located to

prwent contamination of groundwater; and- Industry to be located in appropriate areas, with safeguards to ensure wastewater can

be satisfactorily treated or removed from the siteo Dsvelopment shall avoid or minimise erosion.r Developmerrt shall not dam, interf€re or obshuct a watercourser The Natural Resources Management Act 20M includes wide ranging pow€rs over source

water quantity issues. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resourcesshould be oonsultedn if in doubt, over compliance with this Act. Source water qualityissues are addressed by the Environment Protection Authority tbrough the EnvironmentProtection Act 1993.

6ovemmoniot south Ausralla


@ snwut"tSOUTH AUSTRAUANWATER COFPORATION

Provlsion of Infrastructure

. All applications for connections needing an extension to SA Water's water/wastewaternetworks will b assessed on their individual cornmercial merits.Whe,re more than one develop'rnent is involved one option may be for SA Water to

establish an augmentation charge for that area which will also be assessed on commercialmerits

Trade Waste Dlscharge Agreements

. Any proposed industrial or cornmercial dwelopments that me connected to SA Water'swastewater inizsfructure will be required to seek authorisation to permit the discharge of

quality and quantity loading charges. The link to SA Water's Trade Waste website page

is attacbed for your information: Ilgde-.Wgstepveiliglv

Thank you for the opportunity to comm€nt on the Council's Northern Food Bowl ProtectionAreas DPA. Please contact Peter lliescu, Engtneer, Treatm€nt and Nerwork Planning ontelephone Q8) 7424 I 130 in the first instance should you have frrther gueries regarding theabove matter.

Senior Manager, Water Expertise250 Victoria Square, Adelaide, 5000PboE 7424 1889Fax 08 7003 1889Email dani el. [email protected]. au

Governmentof South Aurtralia

Yours sincerely

-f)F-)per Daniel Hoefel


ln reply please quote: #1 1895862Enquiries to: Nadia GencarelliTelephone:7109 7036

Mr James MillerChief Executive OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box 18MALLALA SA 5502

Government of South Australia

Department of Plann ing,Tra nsport and Infrastructure

Development Division

Level 550 Flinders StreetAdelaide SA 5000

GPO Box 1815Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone: 08 7109 7007ABN 92 366 288 135

http://www.dpti.sa. gov.au

Attention: Miss Megan Lewis

Dear Mr Miller

ADELAIDE PLAINS COUNCIL - NORTHERN FOOD BOWL PROTECTION AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Thank you for providing the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (theDepartment) with an opportunity to comment on the Northern Food Bowl ProtectionAreas Development Plan Amendment (DPA).

The relevant sections within the Department have been consulted and our agencycomments are provided below and in Attachment A - Agency Comments.

Dwellings in the Primary Production Zone

The Department holds significant concerns in relation to the proposed policy approachwhich will enable the development of dwellings within key horticultural/agriculturalareas to be considered on merit. Dwellings are widely recognised as an impedimentto horticultural activities due to the interface conflicts they can create, thus leading tothe incremental loss of viable land. This is of particularconcern given the substantiallevel of government investment in infrastructure within the area intended to supporthorticulture.

Furthermore, the affected area is located within the Environment and Food ProductionAreas (EFPA). Endorsed by Parliament and introduced via the Planning, Developmentand lnfrastructure Act 2016 (PDl Act), the EFPA is intended to ensure the ongoingprotection of valuable food, agricultural and environmental areas from the impacts ofurban sprawl and sets a clear State Government position on the matter.

Operational from 1 April 2017, residential development is not supported in the EFPAand is underpinned by the PDI Act as summarised below.

section 7(5)(d) - development creating additional allotments for residentialdevelopment must be refusedsection 7(5)(e) - any land division approval must be subject to the condition thatany additional allotments will not be used for residential purposes.


of 4

To that end, the Department considers that the DPA is not consistent with this Stateposition and it is noi appropriate for dwellings to be listed as a merit form ofdevelopment within the Horticulture Policy Area should an allotment be created after 1

Apil2017.

The DPA should therefore be amended to reflect the intent of the EFPA with a revisednon-complying provision. Further discussion is provided in Attachment A.

Mapping

Council is advised that significant amendments will be required to mapping to ensureit is suitable for final approval. ln particular, it should be noted that a new map grid is

hazards. Furthermore, Council should note that the flooding data received and mappedby the Department in February 2014 creates a different view of flood hazards than isprovided in the DPA.

The Department can provide updated grids and base maps, and will work with Councilto review the classification applied to the flood hazard data in order to replicate themapping supplied by Council. Further discussion is provided in Aftachment A.

These issues will need to be resolved prior to submitting the DPA to the Minister forapproval.

Many of the other investigations in this DPA are agency specific and the Departmentwill be guided by their advice in this regard.

It is requested that Council's response to the Department's submission be included inthe summary of agency submissions. Should changes suggested by the Departmentnot be incorporated into the DPA, Council is requested to contact Nadia Gencarelli.

Please note that there may be instances where discrepancies arise between theviews of one government agency and another on certain issues. In suchinstances, please contact the Department so it can assist Gouncil in resolvingthese issues (once all agency submissions have been received).

Following the consultation period, Council is required to consider submissions madeand determine whether Council wishes to proceed with the DPA, and if so any changesthat are proposed.

As noted in the Statement of lntent, government agencies must be provided with asummary of their submission and Council's response. ln this regard, a copy of therelevant excerpt from the submission summary table would be appropriate. Further, ifCouncil intends to make the agency's comments publicly available, Council shouldseek each agency's approval in writing, prior to release.

Transition to the Planninq and Desiqn Code

As you are aware, the passing of the Planning, Development and lnfrastructure Act2016 provides for the introduction of the Planning and Design Code (the Code). TheCode is intended to provide a consistent and contemporary planning policy framework


of 4

across the State. With this in mind, Council should be aware that any policy affectedby the DPA will need to be revisited as part of the transition to the Code.

lt is noted that Council has committed to completing the DPA by December 2017. Tohelp facilitate the implementation of the Code, the Department asks that Councilcontinue to prioritise this process to ensure the DPA is completed within the agreedtimeframes. To avoid delays, Council is encouraged to raise any issues arising fromthe consultation process with the Department as soon as possible to enable toDepartment to assist in facilitating a resolution. Council should also be aware that,should the DPA experience delays, the DPA may not be finalised and instead therezoning may be completed as part of transitioning Council's Development Plan to theCode.

Approval Packaqe

The approval package to the Minister should consist of the following documents:

r a covering letter. the Amendmento SUrTlrTl?rv of Consultation and Proposed Amendments Reportr surnrn?v and response to agency submissions. hard copy of all submissions. a copy of the amendment instructions in track changes showing the changes

made in response to consultation.

More information on the documents that are reouired to be submitted at the finalapproval stage can be found at the following web address:

www. sa. qov. a uip la n n i n g/p ractitionersq u id e

The information can then be accessed by referring to the Practitioners Guide toPreparing Development Plan Amendments PDF document and by accessing thetemplates and guides hyperlink.

Please also note that, prior to submitting the final approval package to the Minister,you should submit all maps in Adobe lllustrator format and a copy of the Amendmentlnstructions to the DPA Mapping Coordinator (email:[email protected]). Authorised PDF maps will be returnedto Council to submit as part of the approval package to the Minister.

Council is also required to ensure that the Local Member of Parliament has beenconsulted on the DPA. lf the Local MP changes following consultation, a copy of theapproval DPA should be forward to the current MP for comment, prior to lodging thefinal approval package.

Hand-over meeting

The Department encourages Council and/or Consultant to arrange a meeting with therelevant Planning Officer to discuss and hand over the approval package. This willensure all documentation is included in the package and provides Council theopportunity to discuss the key issues arising out of the process.


of 4

lf you have any questions on this matter, please contact Andrew Humby by phone on7 1Og 7031 or email at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

UNIT MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT PLANSDEVELOPMENT DIVISIONDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

\\ 1to 12917

A - Agency Comments


FzI'uEto


ATTACHMENT A -AREAS DPA

Policy lssues

No. Section Ref lssue Discussion Action required

1. Agency Specffic lssuesMany of the investigationsin the DPA are agencyspecific.

The Department will be guided on thesrissues by the advice of other agencies r

the public consultation approval stage.Should Council elect to not adopt agenradvice, this should be clearly justified irthe Summary of Agency Submissions.

The DPA should also establish clear anlogical links between the investigationsthe proposed policy changes and/orwhether the issues are already adequaladdressed bv existinq policv.

rt

v

Irnd

3ly

Note

2. Attachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone - DesiredCharacter Zone

Reference to the recentlyintroduced Environmenland Food ProductionAreas.

The entire Council area (excludingtownships) is located within theEnvironment and Food Production Are;(EFPAS) area which has been establisiunder the Planning, Development andI nfrastructure Act 2A1 6.

The EFPA has been introduced to helpprotect vital food and agricultural landscontain the threat of urban sprawl byreducing the ability to subdivide land forhousing development.

S

:d

lnd

Amend Desired CharacterStatement of the PrimaryProduction Zone to reflectits inclusion within theEPFA.


The Primary Production Zone - DesiredCharacter Statement should be amendeto include commentary of the EFPA.

J

J. Attachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone

Land DivisionPrinciples of Development Control '19 ar20 should be amended to reflect thefollowing:

"Land division should onlv occur... onlywhere all of the following are achieved:'

d Amend PDC 19 and 20 toreflect suggestedterminology

4. Attachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone,Horticulture Policy Area 3

Keeping of Dogs Principle of Development Control4 (d)includes a reference to 'nq nuisance suras from noise, dust or colour is likely tocreated"

It is suggested that the reference to 'no'should be reolaced with 'minimal'

;h

)e

Amend PDC 4(d) to reflectsuggested terminology

Attachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone -Complying Development

lnappropriate complyingorovisions

Within the new Complying DevelopmenTable, it is noted that conditions (c), (d)and (f) are not quantifiable and require i

judgement call on behalf of the relevantauthority. As such, they canl be complldevelopment conditions. lt is suggestedpolicy is provided to provide specific,quantifiable outcomes, or altematively, '

these conditions be deleted and insteacconsidered as Category 1 forms ofdevelopment.

Furthermore, the following amendmenttare suggested for clarity:

' .. .(b) the total qross |easable floor aredall greenhouse Jglasshpuse structured

Ing

hatbe

forwill

Council to considerremoving from GomplyingDevelopment list

not exceed 20.000 souare metres...'


' ...(g) all buildings are set back atmetres from theboundaries...'

Inappropriate policydirection

As outlined in the letter. theconsiders that it is inappropriate fordwellings to be listed as a merit formdevelopment in the Horticulture PolicyArea as this discourages sensitive(that may impact upon the operation ofagricultural activities) and as this areainfluenced by the direction of theEnvironment and Food Production

It is therefore requested that the DPAamended to make dwellings a non-complying form of development onallotments created after 1 April 2017 toreflect the intent of the EFPA.

Council to consideramendments to the non-complying provisionsrelating to thedevelopment of dwellingsin the Horticulture PolicyArea.

Attachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone - Non-complying Development -Dwellings

The exceptions list for'Land Division'requires amendment for clarity and toreflect South Australian PlanningLibrary (SAPPL) expression. Thewording is suggested:

'Except where it will not increase thenumber of allotments located partly arwholly within the Medium or HighHazard RisR Areas, as shown onMaps - Development Constraints andor more af the following applies:

(a) the land division is reguircd tofacilitate the nrovision of

Rewording requiredAftachment F - PrimaryProduction Zone - Non-complying Development -Land Division


i nf rastru ctu re f or floodflood management purposes

all allotments resulting from thedivision are greater than thefollowing:(i) 8 hectares where they

located within theHotticulture Policy Area

(ii) 40 hectares where theylocated outside theHorticulture Policy Area

\Alrthin the table under PDC 9, the 5hunder the heading'Parametei, the'where' should be inserted directlyfollowing the word 'boundary'.

Attachment G -ResidentialZone - PDC I

Amendment required

For clarity, the following amendment toPDC 17(b) is suggested:

' ...(b) the produce grown is for thepersonal use of residents on theland and not for commerciala n d sa I e u n I e ss inawdanw-withlheearyineen-efgssociA!9!! ulth a homeactivity...'

Amendment requiredAttachment J - RuralLiving Zone - PDC 17(b)

The exceptions list for'Land Division'requires amendment for clarity. Thefollowing wording is suggested:

'&ceat where it is located outside ofseftlements of Barabba and Fischerachieves one of the following:

(a) the land division is required for

Rewording requiredAttachment K - RuralLiving Zone - Non-complying Development -Land Division


(b)

infrastructure for flood mitigationflood management purposes

the land division resa/fs in one othe following:

0 the creation of an allotmeor allotments af 40 hectaor more in size whollylocated within the Mediu,or High Flood Hazard RAreas, as shown onOveday Maps -D ev el o pm ent Con strai ntt

(i0 the creation af an allotmeor allotments of 0.5hectares or more inPrecinctS TwoWells

(iii) in all other cases, fiecreatian of an allotment Iallotments of t hectare dmore.'

rI

,nt

es

nisk

'nt

tr

Technical lssues

No. Section Ref lssue Discussion Action required

11. Amendment lnstructionsTable

Reordering required To avoid confusion, the AmendmentInstructions Table should be reanange,alphabetical order by General Module /Zone names (ie. the order that they ap1

in the Development Plan).

lin

ear

Amend.


12. Amendment lnstructionsTable

Heading conectionrequired

The heading for Instruction 5 should re'Residential Development' to reflect themodule name.

rd: Amend.

'13. Amendment InstructionsTable - lnstruction 8

Rewording required For clarity, it is recommended that the 1

in column 3 be amended to read:

'Referenee te Fleed Hazard Zene 3 erFlead Hezard Zene 2 wihin-PDC 3 wittthe following: ...'

:xt Amend.

14. Amendment lnstructionsTable - lnstruction 9

Rewording required As per the above, amend text in columto read:'Referenee te Fleed Hazard Zene 3 erWPDC4wittthe following:...'

J Amend.

15. Amendment lnstructionsTable - lnstruction 15

Deletion required Delete the number'14' preceding the v'No'.

ord Amend.

Mapping lssues

No. Section Ref lssuA Discussion Action required

16. Attachments L and M New grid and base mapsrequired, and flood datareview

Zone and policy boundaries cannot beshown unless they are defined fromcadastre. Subsequently, new grids arerequired to ensure all assessableboundaries are displayed against cadaand are able to be navigated from theindex mao.

Furthermore, separate map grids arerequired to show the flood dataset fin

itre

t

The Department willprovide new map gridsand base maps.


entirety) against cadastre, and to shownew Urban Employment Zone.

Notwithstanding, it is noted thatdata received and mapped by theDepartment in February 2014 (as partprevious DPA) creates a different viewflood hazards than is provided in thecurrent DPA. The Department willthe classification applied to the floodhazard data and attempt to replicatemapping supplied by Council.

It is noted that the boundary for PolicyArea 3 as shown on maps Mal/7 and 8does not align across the two maps.

Review and amend PolicyArea boundary.

Corrections requiredAttachment L - Policy AreaMaps Mal/7 and 8




Public Written Submissions Received


Northern Food Bowl Protectlon Areas Development Plan Amendment (DPA)

Llst of Publlc Submissions

Representor Request to be Heard? Redactlons?

Ly Luan Le,

Vietnamese Farmers AssociationNo No

Anthony and Bernadette Smith

Smith Road, Lower LightNo No

Alberto & Filomena Guiducci,Ec ar.t t! ^+ tdll a-.'J^' DiU-r Darr{ No No

Lewiston, SA 5501

Jamie Koch

Pinnakle Agri Business ServicesYes Yes

Andrew and Julie Koch

130 (Lot 3) Carslake Road, Dublin

Submitted by Henri Mueller, Director

Regional Planning Directions

Yes No

Louis Marafioti

7 Orietta Court

Angle Vale, SA 5117

Yes No

Gordon and Lyn Miller

74 Carslake Road, Dublin 5A 5501Yes No

J & H Trimboli, M & DTrimboli, & MTrimboli

Multiple Lots, Middle Beach Road,

Two Wells



Yes No

Phillip Earl, Two Wells Yes No

HortEx Alliance Inc.

PO Box 16214, Virginia SA 5120

Howard Hollow, Executive Officer -General ManagerR&D

Yes No

Benjamin Piller, Dublin Recycling P/L

256 Carslake Road, Dublin,



Yes No

John BC Gordon

37A2 Port Wa kefi eld Highway,

Lower Light

No No


Robert and Kerry Bolland No No

Sue Reid

86 Hall Road, RedbanksNo No

Greenwheat Freekeh Pty ltd495 Carslake Road, Dublin

Submitted by David Barone, Jensen Plus

No No

Neil Gregor

206 Gregor Road, Reeves PlainsNo No

Steve Kennedy & Councillor Steve Jones

Lots 5 and 7 Limerock Road, DublinYes No

Trevor Kittel

Lot 79 Roberts Road, LewisonNo No

Melanie Kittel


Symon Kittel


Robert Berryman

415 Carslake Road, DublinYes No

Brett Sharman

MD & LA Sharman Pty LtdNo No

Steven Griffiths MP

Member for GoyderNo No

Light Regional Council

- Craig Doyle, General Manager - Strategy& Development

No No

Margaret Tiller, Mallala Yes No

Neil Tiller, Mallala Yes No


Megan LEwls

From: PHUONG NAM NGO [email protected]]Sent: SundaY, 27 August 20'17 5:3U PMTo: Megan LewisSubject: Re: Northern Food Borvl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation -

25.O8.17

Hello Megan,The consultations are thorough and reflect many aspects for stakeholders to respond.

From the perspective of the greenhouse grow€rs, we would like to confirm the importance of the NorthemFood Bowl Protection.Its economy and operation would enable the workers to sustain their emplolment ; whatever infrastructureto be dweloped should bring practical benefits to the genuine growers.

For the Flood Risk Area" the design should include buffer or fiered levees to mitigate Nature's anger,

patisulaly irr eonsideratiom ae to.begivcrrto-€smsil-,bprgvds- -for residential developments to ensure hr.unan safety is put as first priority.Thanks.Ly Luan LeExecutive Assistant. VFA0431777836

--- Orignal Message ------On Friday 25 Au9201.7 At 2:41 PM, Megan Lewis<[email protected] wrote:

Dear Ly,

Please find attached the Adelaide Plains Council Northem Food Borvl Protection Areas Development Plan

Amendment, which has been released for public and agency consultation from 25 August to 20 October2017.

Kind regards

Megan

Megan Lewis ; Planning Officer

Development and Communityl P: (08) 8527 0200 lE: [email protected]

PO Box 18, Mallala SA 5502 lwww.aps.sa.sov.au


AdelaidePlainseouncit

Celebrating 80 anique years of history as the Distict Council of MaIIola -

Embracing our fuure prosperity as Adelaide Plains Council

ThE enail and any attachments are intended solely for the named. recipient only. The infonrution it cantains may be confidential

or commercially sensitive. IJyou are nol the intended recipient you mwt not use, reproduce or distribute any pan of lhis ematl ordisclose its contents to any other party. Plea.se contact us immediately and then delete the message flom your computeL

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud senrice.For more infomration please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com


From:Sent:To:Subject:

PHUONG NAM NGO [email protected]]Tuesday, 26 September 2017 11:49 AMMegan LewisRe: RE: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation -

25.O8.17

Hello Megan.Son'y firr h'a1srnission crror: tlte right spellings : to rnitigate Naturc Mother's anger or (to rniligate the arlgcr

of nature mother).I'hanksLyLy Luan Le0431777836

------ Original Message ------From: "Megan Lewis" <M L-eu is(a anc.sa.gov.au>

To : "'PHUONG NAM NGO' u <l.vph u o n g(lrt b i gpo lr d. n et. au>

Sent: Tuesday,26 Sep,2017 At l0:29 AMSubject: RE: Northem Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25.08-'l'7

Good rnorning Ly,

Could you please confirm what the yellow highlighted words in your email below should read? | need to record this

accuratelv as part of our consultation and I don't want to misinterpret your words.

Many thanks

Megan

Megan [ewis Planning Officer

Development and communityl P: (08) 8527 0200 | E: m lewis@a pc.sa.sov.au

PO Box 18, Mallala SA 5502 | www.a pc.sa.gov.au


tr

Celebroting 80 unique yeors of history os the District Council of Mollala -

Embracing our future prosperity as Adeloide Ploins Council.

fhis emoil ond ony ottochments ore intended solely for the nomed recipienl only. The informotion it [ontoins moy be confidentiol

ar commerciolly sensitive. ll you ore not the intended recipient yau must not use, reproduce or distribute ony port of this emoil

or disclase tts contents to ony other porty. Pleose conto.t us irnmediotely ond then delete the messoge from your cofttputer.

From: PHUONG NAM NGO lmailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 5:38 PM

To: Megan LewisSubject Re: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25,08.17

Hello Megan,The consultations are thorough and reflect many aspects for stakeholders to respond.From the perspective of the greenhouse growers, we would like to confirm the importance of the NorthernFood Bowl Protection.Its economy and operation would enable the workers to sustain their employment ; whatever infrastructureto be developed should bring practical benefits to the genuine growers.For the Flood Risk Area, the design should include buffer or tiered levees to mitigate Nature's anger,particularly in the new developed sections.Also careful considerations are to be given to Council Approvalsfor residential developments to ensure human safety is put as first priority.Thanks.Ly Luan LeExecutive Assistant, VFA0431777836

----- Original Message ------On Friday, 25 Aug,20l7 At2;41PM, Megan Lewis<Mletyi{Egpe_.&.goLqu> wrote:

Dear Lv.

Please find attached the Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development PlanAmendment, which has been released forpublic and agency consultation from 25 August to 20 October2017.


Kind regards

Megan

Megau Lewis I Planning Officer

Development and Comnunityl P: (08) 8527 0200 lE: mlewis(D.apc.sa.sov.au

PO Box 18, Mallala SA 5502 | www.apc.sa.sov.au

Celebruting 80 unique years of history as the District Council of Mallala -

Embracing our futurc prosperity as Adelaide Ploitts Council'

Thisemat|andutl',t|'(L(:hn7en/'\'urcintendt:dsolc|.1l|brthenanedrectpor cc,mmerciall\'.v

rli'ycloscilstonten|'\|o7):ol|t4"purtv'Pleasecotactusirnmctliate|yunllhendelc|etlrmessugel|iont


For more information please visit http : //ww rv. s lrnanteccl oud. corn

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud s€rvice.

For more information please visit I'tttp:i/www.svrnanteccloud.corn


Megan Lewis

From:Sent:To:SubJect:

Abs Pastoral [[email protected]]Wednesday, 18 October 2017 1O:24PMlnfoNorthern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment (DPA) (REVISEDPLEASE USE THIS SUBMISSION)

ABS Pastoral (Smith Rd Lowo Llgbt)

We wish to make a zubmission in support of smaller lot sizes within the Primary Production Zone for horticultural purposes. In the last

decade we have sold land to horticultural businesses at Smith and Davis Roads. The Davis road development has expanded sipificantlyover time. Two near neighbours of ours on Hart and Middle Beach Roads have done the same. We have subsequently been approached

by a numba of individuals asking if wo would sell them small arreages for horticultural pursrits. We have had to deoline because itcontravenes comcil guidelines. The most recent ofthese approaches was a few weeks ago.

Some ofthese individuals have expressed their int€ntion to aggregate a few businesses on a larger (40 Ha) parcel ifthey could not,-

-acgllire a smaller atlotmeot-Clea"ly lhi.-ic-noi ideal]loleitheclhes-odheSlhadef coFE .|laitt!

-

The approaches so far have been about allotments ofaround 8 to l0 Ha Clearly we can only attest to a small sample here but we believe

it is indioative of demand.

My wife and I, approaching retirement age, are in the process of winding down our business and although we will remain at our curr€nt

home we intend to disperse 160 Ha (curreirt as four, 40 Ha titles). This could potortially release substantial horticultural land as all titleshave two road frontages and power.

We thought this immediate availability of land might be significant in your considerations.

We believe from discussions we have had, other owners in tle area bounded by Smith, Davis and Mc Evoy roads would be supportive ofsmaller allohents also.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony & Bernadette Smith.365 Smith RdLower Light.

This e,mail has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com



Dear Megan,

As the owners (Alberto & Filomena Guiducci) of56-60 Cawler Rivel RoadLewistonsA 5501(LOr 2e2)

Albert & Filomena Guiducci [[email protected], 9 October 2017 10:15 PMMegan Lewisln relation to the DPA

hectares each).

We wish to support this for the following reasons:. People will have the ability to buy smaller blocks of land. More manageable and affordable. It will increase manageability for the land owners. It will also be beneficial to the Adelaide Plains Council

If you require any more information, please don't hesitate to ernail us.

Kind regards,

Alberto & Filomena Guiducci.


For more information please visit htlp:ii r,vr.vrv. sytnantccclottd. cot.t.t


Megan Lewis

From:Sent:To:SubJect:

Jamie Koch [email protected]]Tuesday, 10 October2017 6:17 PMlnfoDPA - Submission

Attention CEO Adelaide Plains Council

This is a submission outlining 2 components:1. Expressing our support for the changes

2. Seeking change to the Urban Employment Zone South East Dublin (reference Page 140, Zone Map Mal/24within Northern Food Bowl Protection Area DPA - Consultation Version document (as found on council

website). We are seeking to include Allotment 92, Filed Plan 161606, Hundred of Dublin in the Urban

lntroductionMy name is Jamie Koch, and I live on the Yorke Peninsula, and run my own grain marketing services business. I am

part of a group of grain growers who are putting together a grain marketing collaborative entity. I essentially assume

the role of the key driver of this project and concept. The idea behind this concept is that it is grower owned, and

South Australian owned.So far, we have set up a trading entity that sells grain down the supply chain, this is phase 1. Phase 2 involves

building a facility that allows us to execute our sales i.e. pack our grain into shipping containers.For us, this where is where Carslake Road, Dublin becomes a strategic position for us.

Our ProjectOur project involves packing our product into shipping containers. This adds value to our offering and service, and

the ability to execute our own sales. In addition, we have will have the capability to provide a third party packing

service to other trading companies. Stage 1 at this point wou ld involve weighbridge, testing hut and bridge, silos, in

loading and out loading.Just recently, we have received interest by other parties interested in acquiring land for alternate agriculture uses.

lf this parcel of land is included in the proposed boundaries, we would be very interested in working with those

organisations to secure land. Potentially even looking at developing a business hub. The current cleaning plant

development on Carslake road provides us with a synergy service that works in with our potential business.

We are also working with the Federal Government Farming Together program, and have recently met with RDA

Yorke,/North to discuss our plan.

Inclusion of Allotment 92 into the south East Dublin Urban Employment Zone

As we understand i! the western boundary of the Carslake Road zone, is currently the block that Australian Grain

Export cu rrently resides on. Allotment 92, the block we currently have an option on, sits directly west of the AGE

block. We therefore request extension of the current proposed zone to extend west, to include the block we have a

current interest in (allotment 92). This will allow subdivision of the land to occur with ease, allowing us to pursue ourgoal, and in addition, provide other potential users with land options. This block currently is not used for any

agriculture purpose, and remains 100% unproductive. lt is covered in weeds such as onion weed and horehound.


The non-compliant process is one I have considered, but it is timely, potentially costly, and has little guarantee.

Having easy sub division capability makes our proposition more viable.

Support for the changesAs a group of grain growers, we fully support any development change that allows value add propositions within theagriculture industry. Our situation has an added uniqueness in that one of our missions is to keep supply chainmargin back in our regional areas, via ownership that is local. This provides internal economic benefits.

lf further information is required, please do not hesitate to ask.

I will attend the public meeting to speak if required, or answer queries/questions relating to our submission.

Regards

Jamle KoclrPinnakle Agri Business Services

M 0473 322 490E iamiekoch @ pinna kle.com.a u

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.For more information please visit http://www.svmanteccloud.com


12th October 2017

James MillerChief Executive OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box 18,Mallala, SA 5502

Dear James,

Regional Ptanning

Directions.tj

P0 Box 67, Spr ngton SA 5235p. 08 8U,8 203/ n. 0188 d5l 9/0

henri@regirralp anningdirecli0 rs cor aL

ivwl reg,nralnranni qdirecliors c0m 0L

ABN g0 152 S35 852

RE:SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT NORTHERN FOOD BOWL PROTECTION AREAS

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (DPA)

I write on behalf of Andrew and Julie Koch (my Clients) in relation to the above DPAprepared by the Adelaide Plains Council. My Clients own land at 130 (lot 3) CarslakeRoad, Dublin and recently established a rural value adding facility for cleaning grain.

Our comments relate specifically to the proposed Urban Employment Zone on Carslake

Road Dublin and we request that Council consider a more compact form and layout for the

Zone.

Urban Employment Zone - Carslake Road

Council proposes to introduce an Urban Employment (UE) Zone extending for 4.3 km

along the northern side of Carslake Road from the Australian Grain expotl site (lot 1 1) to

open farm land east of Shannon Road and comprising a total area of 4'17.5 ha. Theportion of the UE Zone east of Shannon Road comprises 172.5 ha of land or 41.3% of the

total land area of the zone. As neither Shannon Road nor the eastern portion of Carslake

Road are sealed this means lhat 41.5o/o of the Zone would not have the benefit of sealed

road access.

At the same time the western end of Carslake Road is sealed to a standard suitable forheavy vehicle use accessible to properties on both sides of the road, and has water and

three-phase power available. lt is noted that Council is not proposing to make full use ofthe sealed section of Carslake Road as it has limited the proposed UE Zone to the

northern side of the road.

Early signs of a trend in land use change and development from sparse agriculturalpursuits to rural value adding industry can be seen in the establishment of the AustralianGrain Export Facility west of the Livestock Markets Complex and my Clients Developmentof a grain cleaning and storage facility on land situated on the opposite side of Carslake

Road.

Whilst we do not disagree with the total size of the UE Zone we are however concerned

with the Zone's configuration particularly where it extends to the east of Shannon Road

and thereby overlooks the suitability of the southern side of Carslake Road for rural allied


industry developmenl. That is, to extend the zone easl of Shannon Road would not

achieve orderly and economic development:

. Firstly by nol maximizing opportunities for the use of existing infrastructure such as

sealed roads, water, and power; and. Secondly, by ignoring the existing trends in development in the area in lerms of the

orderly progression of growth moving west of the existing Livestock Markelscomplex and to the south side of Carslake Road and opportunities for collocating in

a cluster around existing rural related industry.

Both of the above factors were important considerations in swaying my Clients decision tolocate where they did, being situated almost directly opposite the Australian Grain ExportFacility. The two facilities complement each other in that grain trucks not passing thesampling tests for export are sent to the grain cleaning operation for processing and then

returned to the grain export facility for export.

Furthermore my Clients will be looking to facilitate collocation by other forms of land useseeking to establish in the area including:

. The operator of a seed bagging and export facility expressed an interest inestablishing a plant on my Client's land employing an additional four people;

. An importer of grain handling equipment is also keen to establish on the site toassemble equipment employing a further 2 to 3 people; and

. My Clients are looking to further expand their recently established grain cleaningoperation in lhe near future;

In my opinion the UE Zone would be much more suited to facilitate the kinds of futuredevelopment likely to take place on my Clients land and other land in the area and wouldbe consistent with the early indicators of development lrends outlined above. A preferred

layout for the UE Zone is provided for Council consideration in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Preferred Urban Employment Zone


The preferred configuration shown above would include four allotments on the southern

side of Carslake Road extending from Council's borrow pit to the corner with Port

Wakefield Highway creating a total area of 370 ha of land within the Urban Employment

Zone. Although the total area of zoned land is 47.5 ha smaller than the previous size of

417.5 ha Council could add the allolment adjacent to the grain export facility if it wanted to

make uo the difference.

At the same time by extending the zone to the south side of the road and west of the

existing developed area would maintain consistency with existing development trends. lt is

likely that there will be a tendency for future growth lo occur on the sealed portion of

Carslake Road and gradually infill allotments in the direction of Port Wakefield Road rather

than on rural land further to the east.

The prbperty at the southern corner of eaElake Road and Port Wakefield Road is both an

eyesore and represents an opportunity to attract development at the gateway to lhe Zone.

For example exposure to Port Wakefield Highway is likely to attract an investor seeking to

develop the land possibly for a service station able to accommodate large heavy vehicles

or a manufacturer of farm equipment for sale.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Council's current configuration of the Urban Employment Zone is problematic in that

41.5% of the area to be zoned would nol be serviced by sealed road access. At the same

time land on the soulhern side of Carslake Road with access to a sealed road suitable for

heavy vehicles and with access to water and power has been overlooked.

Early indicators of development trends in the area demonstrate a preference to collocate

wilh other supporting land use in a cluster on both sides of the sealed section of Carslake

Road. Extending the UE Zone east of Shannon Road while overlooking the suitability of

the south side of the sealed section of Carslake Road would be inconsislent with these

trends and would not achieve orderly and economic development.

Considerable additional development and employment opportunities exist on my Clients

land with interest expressed by two other significant operators and the Urban Employment

Zone would be more suited to facilitating such development. Limiting the zone to the

sealed section and extending it to include the south side of Carslake Road is likely togenerate significant development opportunities. Accordingly it is requested that Council

reconfigure the Urban Employment Zone in accordance with the diagram provided in

Figure 1 above.

Should you require additional information or have any questions in relation to this

submission please do not hesilate to contact either myself on 08 85682037 or

0488451 970 or via email on hen rt@rqg ionalplanntngdrrectlons.corn.au

My Client requests the opportunity to address the Council at the public hearing scheduled

for Monday the 30th of Oclober at 5.30pm.

Yours faithfully

--V -"tZ-*--Henri MuellerDIRECTOR - REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTIONS


1e leT zltr

AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTI am making this formal submission to the above on behalf of the land owners in theLewiston Horticultrnal Policy Area 3.I am submitting a submission for review dated l6m JULY 2012 that was given to the thenDistrict Council of Mallala for the 201 1 -2014 Strategic Directions Development Plan

Review.

A. We wish to make the following amendments to our above submission because the Jensen

Planning Horticulture Report was rileased to District Council of Matlala on 18fr November

MEGANLEWIS

Dear Megan Lewis

lJh October 2017

We are not proposiag to have a dwelling on the 2.5 hectare allotments.(Recommendation 73 of Jensen Report).

Adoption of 2.5. hectare allotments in a greenhouse cluster. (Reconrmendations of67 ta 72 of Jensen Report).

Appendix 10A Replaces Appendix 10. Appendix 10 shows the old styleglasshouses of 150 square metres on a 2 hectare allotment. Appendix l0A shows themodern plastic houses of 3 50 square metres on a 2.5 hectare allofnent.

B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SUMMARY OF OUR SUBMISSION:-Total land area in our submission is 284 hectares.

Since our submission to Mallala Council was preparedin}0l2 some landholdingshave been sold. The 3 new land owners suppoft our proposal.

If smaller allotrnents are approved tfiere is potential to create up to 87 allotments ofapproximately 2.5 hectares plus the existing 9 allotments of 4 hectares or less.

If 4 hectare allotments are approved there is potential for 58 allotments plus the

existing 8 allotments of less than 4 hectares.

If the current 8 hectare policy is retained there will be an additional 17 allotmentsplus the existing l0 allotnents of8 hectares plus the 9 allotrnents of4 hectares or less.

With 36 plastic houses (350 square metres each) per 2.5 hectare allotment this isover 3000 plastic houses.

hectarc allotnents will be (58 X 36) 2088 plastic houses. 8 hectare allotmentswill be Q7 x36) 972plaxic houses. The reason for this is because one family cannot

operate 36 plastic houses, land owners are reluctant to lease land and tenant want a

long term lease. (Page 20 ofJensen Study and recommendation 17).

Cunently there are 86 plastic houses in our proposal.

64 ofthese are on 4 allotments of2 hectares on leased land.22 on owner occupied

land.17 plastic houses are propsed in the immediate future on an allotrnent of less than

hectares.Our area has 104 megalitres of bore water

295 megalitres of reclaimed water (WRSV)75 megalitres of Gawler River water

In the market proving study conducted by Anis Consulting for the Adelaide Plains

Council 9 applications were lodged by land owners in our group. 780 megalitres ofNAIS was applied for.


If NAIS water does not serve our area water from the cunent Virginia Pipelinemay become available (see Page 7 of our submission).

Another possibility is to purchase bore water from the land owners that aresubdividing their land for affordable housing the 30 Year Plan For GreaterAdelaide (see page 7 of our submission).

Five of our land orarners have sufftcient water to create 40 allotments of 2.5hectares now.

It will take many years to develop our proposal firlly.The Baker Road has now been completed and Gawler River Road is bituminized.

C. WATERThe NAIS market proving study conducted by Aris Consulting for the Adelaide PlainsCouncil states, for tomatoes 200 - 280 kl ofwater is needed fot a 150m2 glasshouse, and 120

- 170 kl is needed for cucumbers. I will use the maximum amount.Therefore a 350m.2 plastic house requires 653 kl for tomatoes and 397 kl for cucumbers.Appendix 9B of our submission from PIRSA Web site states that o'the average 5 aue (2.1hectare) property has 30- -40 houses each." Again I will use the maximum amount.40 glasshouses of l50rnz is equivalent to 17 plastic houses of 350m2.Therefore 1l megalitres is required for tomatoes and 6.7 megalitres is required forcucumbers. The average rain fall in the Lewistoq areas in the last 15 years was 403millimetres. (see page 6 of our submission.)Therefore l7 plastic houses will collect 2.4 megditres of rain water with zero salinity level.

A l7 plastic house allotment requires 8.6 (11 - 2.4) megalites of NAIS or VirginiaPipeline Extension water to grow tomatoes.

A 17 plastic house allotment requires 3.6 (6.7 - 2.4) megalitres of NAIS or VirginianPipeline Extension water to grow cucumbers.

A proposal to extend the Virginia Pipeline was given to council in a letter dated 23'dFebruary 2015. A copy of the proposal was also given to SA Water.

If 4 hectare allotrnents or tlte current 8 hectare allotments are adopted the amount ofwater require is the same because the PIRSA Web site shows that 70% of producers in theAdelaide Plains have less than 40 houses 1502: (see appendix 98 of our submission.)

D. DOCUMENT DATE MAY 2OO3 'GAWLER RTVER OPEN SPACE STRATEGY'Prepared by URPS dated May 2003 (Job No 07043) (copy attached). We ask that therecommendations made in this report, suggesting that a 50 metre conservation reserve alongthe river is sufficient, be addressed in the proposed DPA.

Council's current 100 metre requirement is not consistent with Playford and LightCouncils. This is restrictiag the use ofvaluable horticultural land than cannot be usedto its ma:<imum potential, such as erecting plastic houses.

ln the Draft DPA by URPS under the heading "FLOODING" item 13b states thatany land division on the Gawler River provides access to the River Reserve. Wesuggest that by adopting eh above report that a River Reserve of 50 metres from thecenffe line of the river be included in the current DPA.

E. We wish to address council on the day proposed.

Yours SincerelyLOUIS MARAFIOTI7 ORIETTA COURT ANGLE VALE SA 5I 17PHONE 82847173


ROADAPPLNDT\( IOA

.Scole l: l()oo

TYPIC'AL 2.5hcrALLOTIÊN-1-

AÊA SURE.AÊNTStN AAg-rRESPACKING &

IAAPLE'{ENT

+z o t+29

6 PLAsrlcHOUSES

oul

6 PLASTICt{ou.sES

o

6 PLAS;I.I c.

HouSEs on

6 PLASrrcl{ouSES

o

6 FLAsrl c'

HOUSES

6 PLASTIC}IOUSES

9 rooStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 178 of 431 6 November 2017

APPENDIX 9

r'3 f - /Rp{aT€,?YWL}LLS? V

ff8E

€,ffi88ffiW195_u__

lndust:ty s.tetis?*sAlmost all the produciion of tomatoes, cucumbers andcapsicums grown in South Australia are grown ingreenhouses, South Australia produces over 5,300 lonnesof tomatoes, 4,400 tonnes of cucumbers and 2,200 tonnesof capsicunr. Grown annually in South Australia are aboui92 hectares of tomatoes, 97 hectares of cucumbers and

86 heciares of capsicums.

The value of greenhouse pcoduciion in South Australiaincludes tomatoes ($2.1 million), capsicums ($1 .7 million;and cucumber ($3 million) as the main cfopg.

There are about 500-600 greenhouse vegeiable growersin South Australia, representing more ihan half the total

number of vegetable growers in Soutlr Australia. Of these gfowers, about 420 produce tomatoes, 400

Droduce cucumbers and 300 produce capsicums (growers may produce more ihan one vegetable type).

South Australian greenhouse production (tomatoes, capsicums, cucumbers) is mainly markeled domesi.ically

into supermarkets and wholesale markets, within South Australja and inierstate (rather than to ovetseas

export). soorce: ABs Agcensrs

ln[ustry strLtctur€There is a iotal area of about 720 hectares of greenhouses in South Australia of which aboui 700 hectat es

are at Virginia on the Adelaide Plains. This includes about 5 lafge producers with a total oi about 22 hectares

oi high-technology hydroponic tomato greenhouses and 5 producers vriih a total of about 10 hectares of

hydroponic lettuie under shadecloth. The rernaining 630 greenhou$es qre l9w to medium iechnologyqiasshouses or polyhou$es (each about 150 metres square each). About 30% of these producers have >40

iouses, 40% have 20-40 housss and 30% have <20 fiousgs. The aveiage 5 acre (2.1 hectat'e) property has

30-40 housas each.

I

t

i.

Locati,trt of tnd.usfl -\'!n ioutfi"AtstrafiaGreenhouse vegetable producUon' is located on the Adelaide Plains

(Virginia, Two Wells, Angle Vale - the largest concentration in Australia),

nivdnanu and Upper Munay (Murray Bridge, Barmera' Loxton) and in the

Lirnestone Coast (O.8. Flat).

Greenhouse Vegeiables

witysowthAwtratiaisagoad."p[actjorrhe.Cr'ySouih Australia has a Mediterranean climate, wiih optimal sunlight, ideal for greenhouse produciion. The

greenhouse inclustry in South Australia, located mainly on the Adelaide Plains, is on the rural/urban jnterface

ind in close proximity (low kansport costs) to Adelaide international and domestic airpori (30 kilometres), vuiih

excelleni road system for fas'i access, enabling ready access to world markets including Asia.


Submission prepared by Louis Marafioti dated 08 July 2012Strategic Directions Development Plan Review - Rural Land & Horticulture

Gawler River Water Harvestinq

As three of the properties in our proposal abut the Gawler River, wetlands can be built in the RegionalOpen Space System (ROS)). This is shown highlighted blue in the south eastern corner of Appendix 1 1.

This area is approximately 16 hectares and has a northern boundary 1 00 metres frorn the centre of theriver.

Winter Recvcled Water from Bolivar

Approximately 100 megalitres of partly treated water per day is released into the ocean. The abovewetlands can be constructed so thai they do not interfere with the ecology of the river. By taking out therestriction in Marafioti's 1o0-millimetre water meter in winter the water flow into ihe wetlands instead ofthe ocean, No new pipework is needed. This water would be available to only some of the allotments in

our proposal and therefore the wetland for the water will not have to be too large.

4. Becvcled Water for Areas in the 30 Year plan that will no lonqer be used for Aqriculture

Appendix15 shows planned urban lands to 2039 (0 -15 years supply). The Bolivar recycled waterservices agriculture land in Angle Vale and Munno Para Downs.

a) Anqle ValeThere are approximately 80 hectares of land using WRSV supply for vineyards and another 4hectares use the water for rose growing. The properties are earmarked for urban lands.

b) Munno Para DownsThere are approximately 50 hectares using bolivar water for almond growing. Another 16 hectaresalmond orchard, also using Bolivar water, was recently purchased by a developer and earthworkshave commenced. This water has been returned to WRSV, these properties will also become urbanlands.

c) In Greater Edinburgh ParksThere is a 24 hectare olive grower a large letiuce farm and 3 other small horticultural farmers allusing Bolivar water. This land is to be used for industrial.

Eventually, all the Bolivar watef in the above areas will come back into the current pipeline system.Consideration should be given to diverting this water to our proposed area.

A diagram plan of the Virginia Pipeline Scheme is shown in Appendix 14. The numbers are the pipe size inmillimetres. The Munno Para Downs line is boosted and therefore it would be more economical to transferthis water to our proposed area. Some additional pipeline will have to be laid and some duplicated. This willbe mentioned later in the submission.

Another proposal io bring water to our prosed area is to have a large wetland in the ROSS area and have acombination of Bolivar Winter Water and harvester Gawler River Water similar to the system that isoperating for the dwellings at Mawson Lakes. ETSA would be available because of the extensions to thenetwork system to supply the proposed 2-hectare allotments.

Goncept Plan

The concept plan is outlined in Appendix 13 which shows the proposed area margined green. The boldblack line is the existing Bolivar recycled pipeline. Pipe sizes can be seen on Appendix 14. The blue lineshows the proposed new roads to create the Z-hectare allotments. This same blue line is the proposedBolivar recycled pipeline extension that is required to service the allotments. SA Water mains and ETSA

-7


APPENDIX 1

Preentrafion made by Louis Marafioti to Distn:ct councir of Mailara open Forum at GouncilMeeting on 23 April 2012

I am representing several land hotders in the Lewisbn area

we will be making a submission for smaller allohlents In the Lewlston Horiticulture ar{wnicncovers approximately 290 hec{ares (7@ hectares} south of Gawler River Rfirct which is notseriously affeeted in the 1 in 100 year f,ood. CaAt

28 November2005' HenriMuereftordmehewasthinkingofrodgeingaDpAfor smaller allotnents

24 January 20@ ' Henri Mueter said he wourd commence in 2 - 3 months.He asked that I write to him to .get the ball rolllng

06 February 2006 . I wrote the leter. Nothing eventuated

July 2007 . Document.De\relopment of HorticuF,rure lndustries onthe Adelaide plains _ A Blueprint fof 2030 was issued. Has been in 1oo hard baskef and ignored by Counclland Govemment

09 March 2010 . Charles Maneueto and Marcus Studwic*e wrote andasked that we provide our vierars and ideas fior the futuredevelopment of the horticulture area. We are pursuing the above docrnent to create smaller,viable, family oriented horthultural allotnents

23 AprilZ012 o No progrss has been made in the last 6 years.. Time to move forward.


APFENDIX Z

d!lv{4

Scale 1:40000

r: lrl

Hazard Zone I c - .:.. *HazardZone? * " --HazardZone3 7 rDsrelopment Plan BoundaryHazard ZglEs {8 defined by GBO No. ?38 ol 19eg)

0 asn

MALLALA (DC)HAZARD ZONES

FlgHazl?Consolldated .18 August 2005


APPEN>IK 3

?42 Mallala (DC)

GAWLER RIVER FLOOD PLAIN POLICY AREA

Background

The Gawler River and its flood plain are located along the southern portions of the District Council ofMallala. The {lood plain is subject to floocling to various degrees when the Gawler River overflows,f rom local catchment run-off and run-off from Salt Creek.

The ilood plain is characterized by a mixture ol uses including significant rural living and intensiveanimal husbandry uses, with new dwellings and outbuildings. Within the.large flood plain area, Iandhas been divided (over a 15 year period) into allotments, in some cases with areas as small as 0-8hectares. lt is readily identifiable as an area rvhich is popular with people seeking a rural livinglif estyle, but in relatively close proximity and with good access to metropolitan Adelaide, f or dog

keeping, horse keeping and with some horticulture activities.

The extent to which the area is flood prone has only been defined since the 1986 Flood and DrainageStudy by Lange, Dames and Campbell, consulting engineers. Since then, flood hazard mapping has

defined 'more

accurately the nature and extent of the potential for flooding in the event of a 1-in- l 0Gyear ARI flood. The Gawler River Flood Plain Map is now deposited in the General Registry Office(GRO) as Map No. 238 of 1993 and it shows Hazard Zones 1 , 2 and 3.

The flooding which occurred to the north of Galtler River in 1992 resulted in flows between PederickRoad ahdt'ort Wakeiield Road wtrich exceeded the flow dxpie-cted during the 1-in-1Og-ye-ar !o9q.Where these flood levels are known (i.e. a-ieleience tlood level) it will be necessary tor restrictions to

be placed on the location and design of structures to minimize risks to life and property.

In the case of any conflict o{ provisions, precedence is to be given to these area provisions over thezone specific provisions.

tntroduction

The objectives, proposals and principles of development control that follow apply to that part oi the

council area referred to as Gawler River Flood Plain Policy Area as shown on Maps Mal/19 and 20.

They are additional to those expressed lor the whole of the council area and for specific zones.

OBJECTlVES

Objective l: An area where development is restricted and it is locaied and designed to havedue regard to the hazards of flooding, and to minimize damage from it'

Land in the area is further dilferentiated into three flood hazard zones based on the f -in-1O0-year ARI

{lood event with variations to the controls applylnS. These are delineated on the Gawler River Fiood

Plain Map, (GRO Map No. 238 of 1993)-

The Gawler River Flood Ptain Map (GRO Map No. 238 of 1993) delineates the 1-in-1o0-year f lood

plain into the following hazard zones:

(a) Hazard Zone 1 - zero to 0.3 metres depth at tlood where velocities are generally low,

(b) Hazard Zone Z - 0.3 to 0.8 metres depth at flood where velocities are low, or 0.2 to 0.3metres depth where velocities are high.

(c) Hazard Zone 3 - 0.8 to tvvo metres pius, depth of flood, even where velocities are verylow. or at depths 0.3 metres to 0.8 metres where velocities are high.

Subject to acceptable civit engineering advice and reports, it is possibte only for very limited

development to be undertaken in Hazard Zones 2 and 3, and in Hazard Zone I for certain

development to occur subject also to appropriate siting, build-up of {loor levels, driveways and septic

tank inverts and consideration given to the implications oi altered drainage patterns {or other land-

25 September 1 997Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 183 of 431 6 November 2017

ll>ll r?ilTll 14

IzilvlliItf


.f\r r E-[.{l) lA s

L=u*

rl,*--'

6.Ir:L/lr s_

{-t]ItlL

-xtJl

r---. ------,---9'P!.t!o.q' a.rr.*

^rd*h-E dttFjrl{ tl.r. 'r

tu^tuh-b': LbrUa&n.t1 O.!s!.r liri


\0llxllallrllr.r'l lltrlltrll<il

1. 1

q Vla-lt-t'::tl-lg

pool! Jea/f 001. srlJolu ou asec asegStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 186 of 431 6 November 2017

AI.PENDIX 7

0.5 1 13 2

olier R@ds

C.d.rtEl P.rcd3

Suburb 8oun.lary

Local Govtmd.n!

Bao936-Ad€Drd€

Mritr Conlor 5rn

Mintr Conto{r ln

f,__- 10 -o.ro

l-' l o.to -o.zs

[-lo.rs-o.solEffiflo.so.rof_llr.oo-roJi.so-z.sol--l z.so-s.o

f s.oo rna ttetr*

! arioqe

? Cu|En gr44$nm

€ $ater marn clo3sm I wal8r co$!.

O sffimain cro.6ag t'atr hult

A Pumpflg slat'on $,aLr

A Pumpng 6|anon !.!r€r

3A Pumpii g slatDn |lclaimsd Yat.r

u

a+

.{l

Kilometres (l:30,000 Sheet 43)

Gaw le r Rtver Floodplatn i:apptng

1:100 YearARl Flood Inundatlon Mapsheet 5 of l0

rryd H.rdd ldrRF.,r.dnr rM d@Fan!d*.,d@d!'l'!|,ffi.(rM1'lF1!!od.!de.''deFEyBGld

iryF a'qEi-6'npa@ts'{ca,r.'d'!

>-varrl7rt;.JJob tlo. 4696a - 525

60226Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 187 of 431 6 November 2017

Aepg.Nptx a

Hazard Cangory

I Lorv

I r,leaiumI HigtlI Extreme

L.r

IVelocig lmisf


APPEN D\X 9A

Created on Fri, 6 f.4ay 20ll

,)| ."tr Ia /,-f\1".--'*'f\ DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MALLALA

r-I

1_--,I

t--l_.,

I uinau" i

i r-r,i i-l]=*;;"1i'L P

(Prital

1

I

tRd

1irl's Rtt

II

lJ

i

-]-tt'-'

I

uI

.;;o

I

I

--- lfn||

"]_

tr-

l-rii\il'i-.F

7ti._!

I'

Legendlli, iI 'l-h _ | | owns

Era1I iiu"o",v

ff ffil-lffl earcet t'roll!'lJ L L'rlll Authority Dara

ilf]I]l lF F.,.-'"rr Ir_ll_\Ll.t''*'-lr-__--r--_ _-

I \ l-J TsA Roads

lE-r1fr: _ . ^F----: ---l Koao l:rey

T--1:-T=-]l--l il lRoaosE._:5 '--RD!'b [y Road Audlt Code

-

1 . TSA Pn€dl. Sealed- tlon Bu lt Up

- - -- ?. Formed - f,Jon Built Up4 Unlnrmad - f'lon Eurlt L lp5 - Sealed- Eur[ Up

-.- 6 Form6,l . Eurlt Up7-Uff(..fit4d-ButttLlf,

....- .- 8- Tracks & Road P€senr'esg- riFale,d Lan4w€v10 - Uns€alqd Lanei,ray

trtrop Eourn I 100yr cawlerI' Egeno I Ftood Area

100yr Gawler Flood AreaBy N4 ax Depfi

I b to5o2.5 to 5

I ts t0 25I t to 15[05 ro]

0 25 to 0.50l to 0250 001 to 0l0 10 0001

Distrlct coundl of MallalaPO Boi 18, l'1allala, SA 5502T: 08 8527 2006Ft Oa 8s27 7242

This map is a represefllahon of the anformation currendy held by Dastrict Counci ot Mallala.While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the prodLrt, Councrl acceptsno fesponsibility for any errors or omissions. Any feedback on omissions or enors wouldbe aDDreciated.


ApprruDlx 9F

--#

reenftouse \ngeta6fus

'lndustrv statisticsAlmost ali the production of tomatoes' cucumbers and

ilJiiil; 'iio'ivn in south Australia are grown in

;;5;;il;.t: s;uth Australia produces over 5'300 tonnes

lit"illi""t, + 400 tonn"t of cucumbers and 2'200 tonnes

"i ""pii""* Grown annuallv.in q?u!! ly11i11i1T:.:b"""*g7 hectares of cucumbers and

86 hectares of caPsicums'

The value of greenhouse production in South Australia

iL"iri". [t.tiu. iSz.r mittion), capsicums ($1 7 million)

and cucumber ($3 million) as the main crops'

export).

lndwstry structur€There is J total area of about 720 hectares of greenhouses in South Australia of which about 700 hectares

are at Virginia on tne noetaije 'pr"inr.

rrti= inclules "ooriir"tg"-ptducers

with,a,total of about 22 hectares

of hish-technologv hvo'opoiL 1"t4" ot9"1h"-'i::^,:i'; ilJtit"tt *1t1 1-l"g "f about 10 hectares of

hydroponiclettuceunoershadec|oth.Theremaining-630greenhousesare|.owtomediumtechnologyolasshouses or potynouses i"l"-n uuout 1s0 metre-s-sqiu"iJ"""'.n1. n6"'i 30%o of these producers have >40

iou"es, 40o/o havezo-+o no',l;s'JiJlbv" i1"u" .zo n'JJ"""ir't" uu"t"g" 5 a$e (2 1 hectare) property has

30-40 houses each.I l Adelaide Plains

| 2 Rivertano and UPPer Muray

! e uimestone coast

rfr'lLoctttiort oJ Udustry {n South tAustralta

.I

Greenhouse vesetable production..is,1":11*^^":^ff-.11*'*,.:l?lli - '-"-]i'\\

-'') t;::1i:il"lt""iffi1:'{*ffi;'i.,i""JCn" Aderaide Prains .' - -';' ,u I

(Virqinia, Two Wells, nngr" V.]; - the taigest concentration in Australia), \ ' ) 1 j

Rivertano and Upper Murray (Murray Bridge, Barmera' loxton) and in the t*1rt-!f f1Limestone Coast (O.8. Flat)' tll

Greenhouse Vegetables

T/fty Sottrlt At+stra[ia is a 6ood ythce ior tf'e croy

South Australia tras a rvreoiterr..tJ".'.-'i,n"", J*itn

optlm"t rsunlight'

ideal. for greenhouse production' The

oreenhouse industry t" souin"iiJ"ii"ii., ioi"t"o n.''rinrv on'ir'" nJejaiae ptains'.is on the rural/urban interface

lnd in ctose proximity (tow transport costs) to nOef aCe iitlrniti;;;'';; domestic airport (30 kilometres)' with

excellent road system for fasi ""'aaa",

enabling ,""dy ,""".s to world markets including Asia'


ll>il4ll2llvililla

lro I'|--tttrl

noP

8vI

u v l El il l! 'x

r ? ? ni r I vtro ,'^tlr' Pl f'!

?H Hrfr nh:86 i a

Fsn H

5rq1n

Pttr

^1rrm1ivZ-v,d

-ZRqatr

zoo.,-

VE{cnS'

fo\x*rIqo8Evffif)uFI

{

isf,El|-

r.l3c,nfrhl"z


Xa7ul6-0-


APPENDIX 12

SUMMARY OF IAND HOIDERS

Narne Road Lot t{o

Land Arsa

lNe@re$ Ac16wnsv

AllocadonMEI

WRSV lD Na

Bore WaterAllocadon

MsL

Bor€llcence

No.Rlver Allocadon SA M€lns Wabr Maln Land t se Dwdllq

Marcionni, R & F Bakers Road Lot X1 15.37 ?7.96 20.00 MARCST 8X 0.00 0 Dlrect Connection Potaio€s & Cereal No

Ntuyen Gawler River Road tot 10 8.00 20.00 50.00 NTIJYUV45 0.(rc n Vacarn - Proposed Hortlculture No

Ntuyen lohns Road L& 12 E.@ 20.00 0.0c 0,(E n Vacanl - Proposed Hortlcu lture No

Metaxat E & M Gawler River Road Lot 2 E2.N 80.0t z25l MFTAGE3T 0.0( Direct Connedlon 2 Lots of 2 HecNares leased for horticutture,remainder vacant

Residence

Merenda, R & G Gawl€r River Road tot 45 8.@ 20.00 0.0c 0.00 0 /\bandoned Market Garden No

Merenda. R & G Gawler Rlver Road tot 46 8.@ 20.00 0.@ /rbandoned Market Garden No

Merenda, R & G lohns Road Lot 47 7.U 17.5€ [email protected] 2I9A 72.70 6007 0 lrbandoned Market carden - 3 loti of 2 heclares

each L€A SED FOA FoeTtc'QL1.O&gNo

Perre. F lohns Road Lot 48 8.@ 20.00 0.00 2430 ELZ'I Vlneyard

Gianrresorio Gawl€r River Road Lot 1 8.00 20.00 0.0c 0.0c 0 R6idence

GlanEresorlo Gewl€r River Road Lot 2 8.@ 20.0c 0.00 0.0! 0

G iangregorio Gawler Rlver Road Lot 4 4.@ 10.@ Ample Ample 0 Leafo Vesetable ctops on rotation b€sis Resldence

Glaneregorlo lohns Road Lot 3 8.@ 20.M 0.0c 0.0! a

G iansreEorio ,ohns Road Lot 4 8.@ 20.@ 0.0c 0.0! 0

Emmanueale Gawler River Road Lot 289 16.18 39.96 0,0c 0.@ 0 stock & Cereal: water cart for stdck No

Uapis Pederlck Road Lot 78 40.@ x00.00 0.0{ 0.@ 0 Vacant lrnd No

Siciliano low€r Road Lot 1 17.80 M.N 00c 7.24 5418 Hobbv Farm - Horses Residence

Marafiotl Tower Road Lot L5i) 24.@ >J,Za 0.tr 0.00 0 Abandoned Oltve Grove & Cereal(share Farm) No

Mar.fi.rfi Tower Road Lot 290 I '.J5

4J.5u 75.s0lMARrLM73 0.@ Auth $lo. 1535? lndirect ex Judd Rd cereal Share Farm; stock No

schmaal Iower Road Lot X2 8.@ 20.00 0,00 o,@ 0 lndir€ct ex Dawkins Rd Sto€k Hobbv Farm; sheep. cows, Flpacas No

Cutri Tower Road Lot 8 3.81 9.4{ 17.@ MARII.M73 0.@ ollndirect er Judd Rd Vlne\rdrd Hobbv Farm No

Moukachar Tower Road Lot 4 5.54 9.6C 10.00 MARILMT3 o.@ 0llndire€t er Judd Rd olive Grove Hobby Farm No

Unknswn Gawler Rfuer Road Lot 1 9.24 0.@ o.00 c lndlre€t ex Judd Rd Hobbv Farm Residence

Unknown Gawler River Road Lot 2 LZA 0.@ 0.m c lndired ex Judd Rd Hobby Farm Alpacas Residence

Unknown Gawler Rlver Road Lot 3 9.2t 0.00 0.@ c lndlrect ex Judd Rd HobW Farm Resldence

Unknown Robins Road Lot 5 3.55 8.80 0.00 0.d) c lndirect ex Judd Rd Hobbv Fann Horses Residence

Unknown Roblns Road Lot 6 4.fi 9.88 o.0{ 0.@ c lndlrect ex Judd Road Hobbv Farm Re6ldence

Unknown Robins Road Lot 7 3.81 9.40 o.o! 0.o0 lndlrect exJudd Rd Hobbv Farm Resldence

Total ?34'.ZG 7M.76 295ll0 [email protected]

-d'0rn7tt

ifo


{

5Azu&

-.r1t--.--a'ri,'\.'-. ./ '-

A,C<rNrr

iq\it -'

J il;'il I"-\ |

LIi

I

II

I

i

i

I

_t__--U5-l

r 901 ,:

iry;VJ\

o

=a'nAV'J

\i z

I,III'r

l/'

=- --;:l -l ,_ [1..

3-1r*v"ti'


LE\^,l STON

/v\UNNqPAEADOWNS

AUftF

v*lr?05e!ot

at

r!0

GREATEREDINBURGHPAE.Kg !

arrlzv7

F&6 \le7t

1It

BoLIVAR

E6

t?_rn-A.r?

6LtrL?tnp

VIRGINIA PIPELINE SCHEME lod a102/01t I

NEXY mods + -A./vale exlension

Womoa Rd Weg vrlvc clos€d


TOTAL

5446 ha

34,111 dwelling units (du)

88,746 people (ppl)

38,000 jobs Angle Vale: 468 ha2633 du / 6846 ppl Munno Para Downs:285 ha

2138 du / 5560 ppl

Buckland Park: 1740 ha9800 du / 25,500 ppl

Playford NorthExtension: 369 ha277O du 17200 ppl

Virginia:386 ha217O du / 56.10 ppl Playford North: 998 ha

14,600 du / 38,000 ppl

Greater EdinburghParks: 1200 ha3E,000 jobs

DRAFT

I Phnned urban lands to 2038 0-15 years supply

16-30 years supply

Programmed development

Built-up area DprG ro: 3.4s

{-(t

n7fl*

tt,

$) tlew strategic employment lands

ffiStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 196 of 431 6 November 2017

NOTE: For Pollcy Areas see MAPS P1ay125,26 & 29,e.T Cointry TownshipH Horticu'ltureMOSS(Rgc) Metropolrtan Open Space Svstem (Recrmtion)NCe Neiohbourhoorj Cen*eE(P) Res-lJantial (Plains)Rec Recreation

'

APPtrND IX 16

Scale 1:40000

RuralFural Living

RuRUL

Zone Boundary

DeYe{opment Plan Boundary

C,G. PLAYFORDZONES

MAP Play/5

MAP Raylg ADJOINS

III

Consolidated . 3 June 2004Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 197 of 431 6 November 2017

t,

IItIrL

If

n'

n

ft

n

fr

$6

lIrl

tIu

il

District Council of MallalaTechnical lssues Paper: Strategic Directions

Development Plan Review

SUBMISSION FOR REVIEWDated 16 July 2012

Discussion Sheet 3 - Rural Lands & Horticulture

Thls submlsslon was prepared by Louis MarEfiotiin discussions wlth, and the support qf, the landonnrers listed in Appendix 12.

For further informatlon please contact

LoulE Marafloti Og A2€E 7 173Tony Meta:<as 08 8280 9510 or 0405 381 4't4


1.

2.

3.

4.

c.

tt.

7.

Gontents

. Grcater Edlnburgh Parks... ..............7

lnigation Water Required ...................9Current Land Use.....,... ......................g4 h@tare (10 acre) Allotmenle. ...........8Prevlous Land Dfuisions. ..........,.,......,9Aerial Spraying and Noise Complaints........,--. .........10Adjoining Horticultural Land ................ ......................10lnvestng for the Future .............. ................................10Development of Horticultuml lndustrles in the Adelalde Plains ...........11Land Owners.,.Land UsE Efic1ency.......... ..............._11

t

I

I

I,

I

t

IIl-'lIi

E

Int;

flL

It

t.

L

f'L

L

tt.

C

C

9.

10.1,1

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

'17,

1E.lo2Q.

21.


L

t.at

t.

tIL.'

11L

Dlrecione Plan Ret iqil- Rural Land & Hor0culture

lntroductlon

We wleh to make a submission in relafion to the Disidct Council of Mallala (DCM) 'Technlcal lseues Faper:Strdegic Direc{ions - Dwelopmeni Plan RwleW'.

In parffcular, 'Dlscuesion sheet 3 - Rural Lands and Horlbulture' is of most lnterest to us

We will commence by drawing your attention ta the presentaton made to council by Mr Loub Maraffod at acouncil meotlng held on 23 April 2012. SeE Appendh 1.

Submlsslon prepared by Louis Maafiod dated 16 July 2012

Ic

t{

fi'

n

mt"g

n

nU

ntJ

IIrl

t1U

nL_.t

I]

to allow 2-hestare (5 acre) alloiments. The area is eoloured greon in a plirn atlach€d. SeeAppendh 2.

The reaeon thb paroel of land u€6 chmen ls because it ls nc( a serous risk to floodtng in the "1 in 100 y€arflood".

Floodlng

AB can be aeen on this plan the proposed area of land is not in a flood hazard zone and was consolldaldon 18 Aug,usl !005. TNs plan was prepared using flood werter levels lhat ac{ually occtned in a flood in lhiarea in 1992. Appendk 3 is a Dlstrlct Councll of Mallala document which states 'the flooding whictr oacunedto lhe notth of Gawler River ln 19gZ resulted inflorns betneen Pederick Road and port-Wakefletd Rodwhlch e)(c€eded the flow expected durlng lhe 1 ln 1 00 year floof. The 1992 flood did not encroach on ourland.

On_Wednesday, 10 May 200€, Frd Pedler, Execrtive Ofiicer of th€ Gawler River Floocl plaln ManagemefiAuthorl9, rnade a pres€ntation io the elec.ted membere ol the DMrict Council of Matlala stailng that ihe riskof floodlng in the Adelaide Plains would b€ raduc€d" by allocaflng the funding of 20 milllon tlollare to:

1. Flood mitlgation dam on the North Para Rlver;2. Squth Para dam modification;3. Lower Gmder Rlverworks; and4. lntegrfly to eHsdng lwles.

Jng matorttY of the above works have been completed as outllned. Appedices 4, 5 and 6 are part of MrPedler's preeentatlon. Appendk 5 shows the extent of lhe 1992 flgod in the area of land we are orooosino iscoloured yellow. Append'x 6 showr our land coloured yellorru with no llooding event if the zo mlfibn do'flarfundlng forflood mitgatlon had not been allocated.

All of the above i8 what actually happened, we now have new flood modeling maps ol whal might happen ina 1 In 1 00 year flood. See Appendk 7 and Appendix IIt can be seen lhat the land we are propoeing I ln ths loiv-medlum hazard category, wtth a maxbnum flooddepth of 250 millimetrgrs and Mll only occur one in €very 100 years. Therefore there ie only a 1% risk offrooding and for 99% of the tirne horliculfural operations in the area can be undertaken.


Submiseion prepared by Louis Maraflot dated 16 July 2012Directions Plan Rwlew - Rural Lsnd & Horticulfure

{

As shown in Appendh E, lhere are pockets of land Olgh[ghM In orange). whbh are low lying, but not in adhect fbod path. Theae parcels of land can be used lo build thE dams that are required to harvest rainwatertrom grBen houee slrudures. The 3 altotnents categorized as "High Hazard'harri existing dwelllnge on 6lteand are each 3,73 hecbres in area, namely lots 1, 2 and 3 Gawler Rlver Road.

Appendh 9A thouts a recent land dlvision approved by the DCM on the Northwst comer of Gawler Rfuerand Pededck Roads. These allotments are zoned 'Rural LMng' and are t hestare (2.S acre€).

The above alldnents are on the northem side of Garrler Rfuer Road, opposfte the proposed 2-hetareallobnent propoeal.

Looking at AppendH.7 in our proposed area tte area highllghted norangoo wlll have a masmum depth of2S0milllmibe ln a't in 100yearflood.

To build a 250 square m*e dwelling the following preparatlon measures need to be takEn:

. The compaded quany rubble belor the foundetion wlll be 100 millimeres.

. The concreile dwelling slab will be 100 miltlmetres. Therefore, to ha\re a finlghed floor level ol 300mllllmllres above the 1 in 100 year food level will require a bulH up of 350 mnlhetres of compactedsoil.

' Allowlng al6o for a 2 metre vvide buiH up of filllng all around the dunlllng the quantlty of soll ie 142 m3.. Bullding a dam 12 metres x 12 metr€s x 1.5 metres deep 216 cublc metreg of soll ie exerrated which is

ample for the build up. Thls dsn can be used to harvest rainwater from green hous€ sbuctures andstore wEter for hortlcultural lnlgatlon.

' The area highlighted llgttt blue wlll requlred less build up. ThE small pockets will be avoided fordwellinge. As can be €een on thls plan if 2$ectare allofrnents are appmved there will be a suftabledwelling site on each allobnenl

Viability of 2 Hectare (5 acre allotments)

Appendix 98 ie from a PIRSA website. PIRSA reafhrms our positon in respect to land ske ln thatapproximately 7oolo of grower in the Notthem Adelaide Plains conduct thelr business on an a\rerageproperty ske of 2 heclares (5 acres). Of the 5 larger producers with a total of 22 hedares of hlgh tech

,.- tomato productlon only one of $ese is on an area greater than 2 hec{ares that belng dMng ripe at Twoq" Wells. gf the five large producers growing hydroponie letluce one has signlfrcanlly scaled dorn their- operatlons due to thE competiton ftom smaller more erffc-lent operations.

Appendix 10 shows that 56 green houses can be bullt on a 2 hectare anotnent, leaving room for a duellng,packing shg!, water storage area (Dam or tanks) lt would be lmpoeslble for 56 greenhouse to be operatedby one famlly. Casual labour would be requlred, they could also leass 6ome of the land ae is happening lnthe Virginia area because of the un.aveilability ol allohents to purchase.

IL

rt.

rt.t

t-[;

r$

t,

rIt-rttiLJ

rlt

tItt,

rLIt_

tt["L

It_


Availablllty of Water

t.

|.

rt-t

IrI.L

rlIL;

rU

Dlrectione Plan Review - Rural Land & Hortiarlture

SAWEter

Appendx 11 from SA Water shows that waler mains In the vlcinfu of our proposal highlighted inblue.

. Judd Road (at Gawler River Road) has 9 Indirect services that supply the 8 smaller allotnenbimmedistely eoulh, whlch are less than 4 hectare and Lot 290 on the south Easl conpr olGawler Rlver Rmd and Tovrrer Road. lots 1 - 6 have drellings and are hobby farms.

Submlsslon preper€d by Louis Ma|afioti daied 18 July 2012

l-tL-t

fnt-i

nU

nf'!IIu

ficnU

ilU

B

tJ

tl

u

Il

4,

. Lot 2 Gawler River Road, soutr ofsupply

I emailed SA Water on 16 September 2010 regarding mains capability for horfcuhure in Loriston,however I have yet to rscgive e reSponse.

Folloding a m€eting with Chdstopher Mades, Manager of Buslness Developrnent at SA Water on08 March 2011, which also induded an inspedlon of the propced area, he promisd to provide awrmen response to our proposal, horrever to date we ha\re not rec€lvad any no0ce.

A v'tslt to SA Water on 09 May 2012 resulted in the attached Appendk 11 Plan belng obtained. butto determine if the sunounding mains have the capacig to supply water to approxlmatdy 120dwellings in the propoeed area a flor test will need to be dona at the end of all the sunoundlngmains. The cost of this would be appmximately $400.00. We wfll assume that if there would havebeen sufncient main$ wat€r to supply the allobnentB in the rural lMng area that canrrct besubdNided bec€use thoy \rrould be prone to flooding, there wi0 be sufilcient water for our proposal.

The allotnents in ihe Rural Lfulng area that cannot be subdMded cover approximately 560 hectar€(1,400 acres) or say 500 dwelllngs. Also we will assume that there will be sufrcient urater supply forthe €xpansion of Two Wells and Mrglnia and lhe ngw development of Buckland Park, as all wlll besupplied fom the Barossa Reservolr.

Bolivar Recycled Wster ($nSV)

There ls in e:<cess of 295 megalitres of recycled water allocated to our existing allotrnents. Thebreak dopn for eadr allo&nenl Quola and ldenffffcsilon number is shown In Appendix 12. tllarcionnlcan transbr moro water to hls allotnent as he has two nearby propertleB each with 91 megatitres,Giangregodo has ample WRSr' tJvater and bore water but does not wleh io advise of his total waterquob. We respeci this. Gutri and Moukachar obtaln lherir alloca0on from a legal prtvate schemefrorn Marafloti.

Bore Walerfrom V\latEr Rssources

There is in exceg of 1(H megalitres of bore water allocated to our edting atlotments the breakdownfor each allotmEnt quote and llcence number ie shown in Appendh 12. Merende has a tolal of 172megaliFes of water and has water available for transfer to other property holders if required.

Gawler RiverWater

Marafoti has authortsation to inlgate 16,6 hedares of land fom water sourced direct from theGawler River.


Submbeion preparcd by Loule Maraffi dated 16 July 2012

It-.

I

f-!It,

IllLf'la,ti

tIfi

IInU

ILJ

tItttfrL

t

L

Dlrectlons Plan Review - Rural Land & Horliculture

ETSA

On 17 May 2012, enquides were madE to ETSA to ascerbln if there raras sufficient supply to server 120deelings and pumps for our propoeal. The enqulre Number b 100664951.

ETSA ia available. There are cunent supply llnes at the following locatlons:

. Full length of Baker Roed. Full Length of Gaoler Rlver Road. 1800 Melres of Johns Road e*t of Bakero Road. 430 metere of Torer Road South of Gawler Rtver Road.

Gas

A large gas maln ls 600 metrs east of our propoml with an exisllng tapplng poir$ on Gacler River Road,Thls was used to supply a nearby mnd plafit but is no longer in use. We assume it could be made availableto lando\itnerc ae cunently DVine Ripe glasshouses al Two Wells sourcs gEs direct ftorn the same plpaltne.

The gas plpeline is highllgMed in yellow in Appendk 13.

Roads

1. Baker Road ls a s€ald toad and the Baker Ro€d Ford upgrade is being considered in the 2012/'13DCM Budgst wth co+ontribuffon from Playford Council;

2.

3.

4.

F

6.

Possible Other Sources of lrrigation Water

1. Rain Water

Some of the proposed 2-hectsre allotmente that have greanhous€s can harvest the roof waier run ofl^The average rainfall ln tho last 15 years was 403 mimmetres. The highesi ralniall was 484 millimetres ln2005 and the lowaet was 300 milllmetee in 2006. Therefore 60 kilol'ltres of wator can be collectd fromeach greenhouse of 150 square metres.

Taking an average family run farm of 25 greenhouses this amounts to 1500 kilolitres. At SA l/Vatqrcunent price of $2.75 per kiloliFe for excess wdef this is $4,125. An added bonus is that rain waler haszero salinity and SA Water has a sa[nlty of 600 palts per milllon. This will help to reduce ihe salinity olBollvar Recycled Waier in the collectlon dam which is about 1200 parts per milllon.

Gawbr River Road sealed from Old Port \ilakefteld Road to Heasllp Road except for 200 metres eastand weet of Roberls Road T Junctions:

Johns Road is cunently unBealdi

Pederlci< Road ls cunently unsealed;

Toser Road is ounently unsealed and is not stralght or formed. A writt€n r4uest to align and form lheroad conec,tly on the 11 May 2010 and was denled. The reply stated that the road is "Fit for purpose';and;

Roblns Road is cunendy an unsealed private road and wao named Roblns R€d without consultationwith the olitner. ThlB road was oftred to the council for nothing and a councll meetlng on 07 Septambar1998, but they declined thE offer. lt is noiv orned by lhe same orner as Lot 4 Tortrer Road.


t.,

r[,

rt.

tt'Il-r

rLJ

Dlredions Plan Rwiew - Rural Land & HaNeulture

Gawhr River Wgter HarveSing

As three of the properdeg In our proposal abut the Garler Rlver, wettands can be bullt in the RegionalOpen Space System (ROS). Thle ls shown highllghted blue in he soulh eastem comer of Appendx 1 1.Thb area is approximately 16 hgctares and has a norftern boundary 100 meires ftom the centre of iherfuer.

Winter Req'cled Water ftom Bolivar

Appro$mately 100 megalihes of partly trealad water per day is released into the ocean. The above

Submiselon prepared by Loub Marafoti dated 16 July 2012

Ittt

r'!

u

FIJ

fiti

nr1tlr{fiil

u

u

t]

tJ

nLt

t1

wetlands can be construcfed so that they do not irterfure with the eoology of lhe river. By out lhe

the ocean. No nevu pipemrork is needd. Thls water would be availeble to only some of the atlotlents inour proposal and thereforE the wEtland for the wEter will not have to be too large.

4. Resvcled Water ftom fueas in the 30 Year plan that will no lonEer be used for Aqfculturo

Appendix 15 shows planned urban lands to 2ff19 (0 -15 years supply). The Bolivar recycled waterserv&:es agriculfure land in Angle Vale and Munno Para Downs,

a) Ansle VEleThsre are approdmatoly 80 hectares of land using \IVRSV supply br vineyards and anolher 4hectars use tho water for rose growing, The propertles are earma*ed for urban lando.

b) Munno Para DownsTherE are appro{mately 50 hectares using bolivar water for almond growing, Another 18 hectareBalmond orchard, abo using Bollvar wder, was recendy purcfiased by a developer and earthworkshave commenced. Thls water has been returned to \fVRSV, these properties wlll also become urbanlands.

c) In Greater Edinbursh ParksThere is a 24 hectare olive grower a large lettuce farm and 3 other small hortlcultural fiarmers allusing Bolivar water. Thls land b to be used for industrial.

Eventually, an the Bolivar water in the above areas will come back into the cunent plpaline system.Conslderation should be glven to dlvertlng this water to our proposed area.

A diagram plan of the Mrglnla Pipeline Scheme is shown in Appendlx 14. The numbers are the pipe she lnmilllmetres. The Munno Para Doyyns line is boosted and therefore lt would be more economlcal to transferthls waier to our prcpeed area SomE additional plpellne wlll have to be laid and some dupllcated. This willbe mentioned later ln ihe submisslon.

Another proposal to brlng u/ater to our prosed area is to have a large wetland ln the ROSS area and have acomblnation of Bolivar Wnter Waier and harueted Gawler River Waier similar to the system lhat isoperating for the dwellings at Mawson Lakes, ETSA would be arallable because of lhe extensions to lhenetwork system to supply the proposed 2-hectarc allotments.

Concept Plan

The conc€pt dan ls outlined In Appendk 13 which shorvs the poposed area margined graen. The boldblack line ie the existing Bolivar recycled pipeline. Pipe sEes can be eeen on Appendk 14. The blue lineshows the proposed new roads to creale lhe 2-hectare allotnents. ThiE same blue line is the proposedBolivar recycled pipeline extension that is required lo seMce the allotments. SA Water mains and ETSA


{

Submission prepared by Louis Maraffoti dated 18 July 2012Directone Plsn Revielv - Rural Land & Horthulture

e)densions will also be on ttrese roadways" This is only one of the possibte concept la6routs, The length of!e eropopa ngw roads ls approSmalely 47O0 rrFfues and the indMdual landownen would pay tre-cosfThe leng-th of Bollvar msln extension of the main line is 2600 melr6 although some of the e{'stiirg line wilthave to be duplicated wilh a larger pipe sizel 2600 metres of intemal Bollvar llne extension s also requirEdwlen the lndMdual propertles are subdMded some of these line extensions msy be pdvate lines ai theyalready exlst.

Contours

Appendix 13 shotvg thet the land lerrEls of our proposal may vary along Gawler River Road, from 24 metresabove 8€ level at Tourer Road lmersec{oni 23 metres abore sea tevel Et Judd Road lntersecdon; 22metree above ssa lwEl at Pederick Road intersestioni 20 metrss above 8ea level at Betheda Roadintersectlon; and 18 meffes above sea level at Baker Roed Intgrsection.

The comparable levets ln eurrounding areas:

. Vlrglnla is .|5 mebes above sea level:. Two Wells 10 metres above sea lerrel; and. Bucldand Park is also 10 metes above saa level.

lrrigation Water Required

necgntl! a le$er to Maratioti from DCM sbtes that GROW SA advised thal 2.27 megalitree of water lsrequired psr heciare per snnum. Thereiore 4.54 rnegalitres ls required for each of our proposed 120alloffnents whlch total of 845 megaliheo.

Appendk 12 shows that vne have a total of 399 megafiftes of bore water and Bollrrar recycled water and thisdoes not include Glangregorlo'e alloo€tlons. Any rainwaier collected is a bonus This shows that if the Bollvarryatel ft.9m the dweltngs proposed In Angle Vale, Munno Para Donrns and greater Edinburgh parke lsdivorted into our arca there will be sufftcient water wlthout cos0y extenslons to lhe pipework system.

Current Land Use

APpendk 12 shows cunent land use in the area. lt shon s that having large atlohrents does not allow theland to bE usd effclently for horticulture, which ie what DCM, and Govefnment, requires.

The cunent Minister for Flanning, Mr Rau, has expressed his opposition to 'uban sprawl' and iherefore weassume he is agalnst "Hoillcultural SPra\,|' by adhering lo the crnent ouldated policy of I hectareallotrnentg ws will have an economically unvlable hortlcuhural industry.

4.Hectare (10 Acre) Allotments

A good example of hortlculture sprawt is the Hordcultural Zone ai Penfield Gardene in the Playford CouncilArea. See Appendlx 16. The area coloured yellow consists of 62 x 4-hedara allotmenls.

, 13 allotrnents are used ior hortculture' 10 allotments are abandoned almond orcharde or vineyards. 't2 have stables wilh 7 having trotting tracks. 27 are vacant and used as hobby iarms with some having sheep and alpacas

t

t

trt.

I'

tIIrLIrtti

tu

ttt"

L

f'L

L

L

{-

riIIt_


t.

t,

Ir,Il-,

r!Il.r

r![;

Submiselon prepared by Louis Marafio[ datEd 16 July 2012Sfateglc Dlrectons DEvelopment Ptan Revierry - RuEl Land & Hortculture

lilhen the Bollvar rmycled scherne uras offered in 1998 only 4 of the above propertles applied. Thereforelaying a pipeline sould not be jus{iffed. ln 2007 when lhe booeted line to Angle ValE uas offered only 5 ofthe above properties received vvater aB the boosted llne passes through Broadacres DrivE to gEt to otherproperties In Munno Para Dorns which will novy become residEntial ln the 30 year plan.

The area ol land we are proposing ls slmihr in size to the above. Taking into account that we have beenasked for'Our Vleun' for our area we would not [ke our good, productive land to be misused as above.

Previous Land Divisions

tfor approval although lhe allohnent stses have been below I hecitares. The Development AssessmentCommlesion has refused both. The Govemrnent planners have stated that lf councll ls prepared to supporllhese applications they should prepare a Development Plan Amendment so as have uniform devebpmenl.

1. C.A &RConti - DA31ZD00?06

The development appllcation was in He-ard Zone 2 and 3 In the old ffood map. In the naer flood mapmodel it i8 in a Greater Hazard Zone category. TUE DCM staff a$ended the hearing to suppoft lhEappllcation held on lhe 23 November 2006 beirre the planning commisston.

DCM sbfi member Henry Mueller in supportng the applicatlon stated.

"the potential of tlooding in tha Lewlston Area will be sddrcssed and tha upsfroan rne6sorss wfl,substantially mitigate flaodtng, but will not have any effet on the lower areas ln the Oawler Ftood Plain'

DCM staff member Brendon Schulz in suppoding the application stated:

"Glven the positive beneftts for the future management of f,ooding in the area, the gena'ell consislensyuttth the potlcix for the horticulfural zone and the land uses wll not change, coundl supports theappilcdtion"

This applicafron wa6 to convert 2 titles into 5, one of which would be Rfuer Reserve and the remaining 4Stles for horticulture, Because of the refusal the owners lease the 3 dwellings and lease 4 parceh ofland of approxim€tety 2 hectarcs each for horticulture, They also have retalned a small secdon, eachwhlch is a vlneyard. Havlng absent landlords is not what we want in our area. There are problsmsassoclated such as shating drlveways and seruices.

2. L & N.A. Marafioti - DA 312/D01?07

ls not in a haard zone in lhe old flood map. ln ihe nerru flood map it is in the low+nedlum hazard risk@tegory in a 1 In 100 yearflood evenl

DCM deided not to attend the development assessment commisslon hearlng, which was held on 23April 2009.

DCM atso decided not to inform Maraffotl that the hearlng was to take place.

The Commlssion also refused this application. This application was to convert one titl€ into 4 tilb, oneof whlch would be River REserve and the remaining 3 allotmenls for horticulture. Because ol the refusallhe owner has putled out 10 hectares of olive trees and intends to abendon another 4 hectaree of olivetrees and share farm the land for cereal cops, which is not vlable.

su

n

ff

tl

fr

[1U

fltJ

nU

tJ

IJ

tJ

fl Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 206 of 431 6 November 2017

Submlssion prepared by Louie Marafio,{ dated 16 July 2012Dlreclione Plan Redevl - Rural Land & Horticulture

t"

l

rt"

t,

tIttnU

IIu

T

It-,

t"

['L

f'L

IL

{

The ouner also has 75.5 megalihes of Bolfuar water he wlll not be using but has to pay for. The onlyryilon ls to leaee the property aE [email protected] alMe ht he b retucffi-to Oecome i dndord. Thls iinot what wE wani in the area bec€use of the assoaiated problems.

Aerial Spraying & Noise Gomplaints

Th199 of the propertles in the proposed area use aerlal spraylng. Two have received complaints fromnelghboufing Ruraf LMng areq resldents imncdiately north of Garyler River Red.

fiere is no need lor aerial spaylng witt smaller hortcultunl allo,tnents.

Three complaints have been.received regardtng noise ftom pumping operations because lhe larger hotdlngsrequhed larger pumps. Smaller allobnenb neld to the adioinin! ru-rat'ltvtng ctwelllngs area would be morecompatlbb regardlng nobe polluton.

Adjolning Horticultural Land

The adjoinlng horflcultural land towards the eEst of the proposed area is approxlmetdy 214 h€ctares (Sgsacres). Only 32 hectares is used for horilqrlfure.

. 16 hectarevineyard;

' 16 hectare part tme ollve orchard (soon to be abandoned);' 22 heciare market garden, which ls no longer operational, has been subdivided int6 I hedare hobby

farms:. 14 hectares used as a catfle feedlot. 1&heclare cafre hobby farm.' 16 hestareo of abandoned vineyard and winery. 3 horse propedles with siablea and trotdng tracks; and. Other propertlee are used mainly as hobby farms_

These 214 heclares of land ie hlghllghted pink in Appendk 2.

We.hgve no.t Included this parcel of land i1 our proposal because of the new flood model ptan for this areaand aleo wlthout some commitment from the govemment to extend the Bolivar Pipeline to this area it io notvlable for horticulture.

Again ihis is not what we urant for our area to descend to.

Investing for the Future

Recently the Stqte Treasurer, Jack Snetllng, shted the Adelaide Oval proJect. is an invesbnent, as we1 asthe Adelaide Zoo.

We believe the extensbn of the Bolirrar plpeline as suggested ln our proposal is also an investment lhat willhave an equal, or great€r, percenlage of relurn to the communlty.

The extension of the Bolivar plpeline will not be an e)qenslvo prdect and may be ellgible for Federalfunding.

We intend to sp€ak to our Local M€mber of Parllament. Usa Vlahos, and our Federal Member, NickChampion as soon as we know we have council support for this proposal. Even wlifrout an exension to the

C

t_

I't_

IO


t.

t

nt.

f-t,

trrL

Dlrecflons Plan Review - Rural Land & Horticuhure

plpellne, if 2hectare allotrnents are approved over 70 allotments can be subdMdpd and made available forhordcultural produoffon. When funding is anailable the line can be esended.

Development of Horticultural Industrles in the Adelalde Plains

Thls doqiment !$as released in July 2007 and hae been ignored by both DCM and the State Govemment ltls a blueprlnt for 2030 and 6 years have passed without any progrs,B. We only havE 18 years remainingand do not understand the connes{on between this docurnent and the "30 Year Plan for Greater AdelaideiWe beliEve thie proposal should be processed geparately to avold any further delays.

Submission prepared by Louls MarEfio$ dated 1B July 2012

f;f

$"rttJ

fr

fi

tktlt.l

ttU

flU

ti

Iu

rL-

Appendlx 12 tlste ihe names of the 13 landownerc thal we have spokon to, All are in favour of the poposalwe have outllned because they would llke to sEe thslr land usEd in a more productive and efflcbnt way.

The 6 landowners ftal we have not spoken to have alloFnents of lee than 4 hetares and all havedwellings used as hobby iarms, We do not knou DCMs vierrs about sub-dMding these lots, but they stillhave the potendel to be Uable horticulfural allotrnents as many hortlcuttural allotmenls in Virginii aresmallsr. The lol numb€rs are shown in Appendk 11.

Land Use Efficlency

Land use efficiency is shown in Appendix 12. As can be seen. the proposed aree of 284 hec,lares is notused to ils ma)dmum potential. Glven thal DCM would like to relain thls percel of land for horticuhure, theonly way to achleve lhls ls to have 2-hertare allobnents.

Other ideas suggesled in other areae in the DCM area are too far into the future, mlght not hane the supportof the lando*ners and do not have any of the services required.

With.the increaslng global demand for food and thefactthat large parcels of Hordculture land is beingwvallowed up for housing, llew areas have lo be opened up.

Gonclusion

We hope that as out dEcted members, the fact that you rcpresent us and askEd ior dtr views and ideas ofwhat we want In our area you give favourable consideration lo approvo the proposal we have given, andproceed to prepare a development plan amendment.

Our proposal is workable and will not be of any financlal burden to council.

We do not wieh to be heard in support of our submission at the public hearing but again we dr6i, youfattention to Appendh 1 whlch was a presentatlon made io the council on 23 April 20.12.

We will make ourselver available for questione if this is required.


ProlctT€rm

The cawler Rlver open space 5trategyhas been prepacd by URtts aod SwanburyPenglase on behall ol the Gwler River Flosdplaln ManagEment Authorlty.

Thefundlng conlrlbudon oftheAdelalde and Mt Loffl Rar8es Naturdl Re5o!rcesManagement goard ls !*novitledged. The consultan! team also rrlsh told(nowledge the asslstan(e of the followtng peoplE ln th€ pcparatlon of theopen spa(e Strategyl

F oled Fst€renlE croup

. Fred Pedler - oawler Rlver Floodplain Management Authorlty- Kelth Smhh - Adelrlde 6Mt Lofty Ranges NaturalRe5ouce Mrnagemern Boad- DrBrure Eastl(k - Ca*ler Rfver Floodplaln Managemert Authodty- HenrlMlEller- olsdct Councll of Mallela- PderChapple - Clty of Phyford- Mlthael Wohlstadt - To!fln of GawlEr- Andrew Phllpott- Light ReglonalCquncll- Shauna Potter - lJrban Fo|e t Blodlverslty Program.6eoEe Glrgolas - IholnborouEh Estate Fty Ltd- Matthew Lanq - Plannlng 5A- Cr Ame Pl(ard - oistrlrt toun(ll of Mallala

lhank you all foryour ydluable contrlbution.

Pg2,.! io. dr043


Table oi Cortents

Arknot ledgments

lrtt|odurdon

Ana\El5

Key Map

Analysls Map A

Analyll5 Map B

AnalFls Me! t

Atlalysls Map D

Artlon Plan

Rerommended Acdons Map A

Rerommended actlons Mep B

Re@mmended A(don5 Map C

R€commended Actions Map 0

Prlorlty tu€e I - Bakels Road Wetland

Pliorlty Arci 2 .Argle Vale

nlorlty Area :t - Northem ErFre5sway Crssslng

Prbrtytu€a4-Gawler

4

5

l0

11

l8

20

z'l

21


irii't.. r,

-lj.'i',1,'a . '"r-..-:i,

- _:i:.;J ,

.1, INTROBUCTION

.lJ THE GAWLER RIVER

FormlrB an ead-lyest conidor fmm the hllls to the 6ast, the Gawler

Rlver ls the hrgest and most slgnlfitant rratercouBe In the NonhemMelalde Plains. The Rlver beglns !t the lunctlon ofth€ Noih andPara RfuBE ln the toern olGrwlel lt then florvs alross tha NorthemAdelalde Plalns and dElns lrto 5tVlntentt 6ulf at Pon Gawlel

Many parts of the Gawler Rlverfeaure a 'u' shaped channel wlthbanks, whlci maker lt often dlfftrull to galn acess to the llver bed.D€€p, p€nnenrnt rEterhohs ocur at lntprEls llong tl|e Rlver,padorlady h the lerer Erhen whlch prnide valurblr tgfuges toraqugdc feunr and treterblrds, Ihe bed 15 often dEmely vryetatEdr€ds and bulrush, and a nrg€ 0t oti€f v!€tlild planG.

The total ratrhm€nt erea of the Gawler Rlver ls 1,rr0 squar€,rhhh ls nBsth lo the hlgher nlotall reglons ofthe Meurtt Loltyand ls ettrlbutabls to the North and south Pan R[,€rs. Flfls In theGewler Rlver are sea5onal, ofiunlng most yEeE dudng trJlrfEr. Llqeflood fl6ts otan, on avBragE, every lD yeani, hfhlch tan resoll lndanaglng floodlng sf the sun(lrndlr8 areai.

Ih|ougholt lts l€Bth. the River ls lrell v€getrted wlth slbstartlalof River Red Gums (Eucalwtui c?meldul€nsl5), Indudlng many lalge,m4nlfirent tree5 of (msldsrable ege, es well es some Rlver gox(Eurelyftui larglflorens), Rtuer Wllcf, (Acada sallrlni), and Llgnum(Muehlenbeckla Rorulentum). ceneGlly, the nattve undefstotpt lsred{ed by lrltndmed weeds and a ra €r of pest plants, surh aB

bambd, buthorn. ar rhoke and burs.

The Rtuer ls, genelallv, In plhnte own€|ghlp, maklng mifry srctlonsuniv€llablr to thr Dubllr, Tte o(tsacdon of loam and s!nd5has beenrrnled out for many y8ars alorB ths length qf thE RN€r, resultlng In

dkus€d loam plts et*Er adjarent to the Rhrer. or ldthln the rhannelItselt, sorE ofwhl(h have been used iordomplnB ofrubblsh In theSome loem plts arE stllloperstlng.

Flood f,our gemnlly ate cDnflmd to the channel by lev8Bs whl(h h:vebeen construltrd In mo6t (asas vsry clos€ to tho topl !f banks,

1.2 THE GAWLER RIVER FLOOOPLAIN MANAGEMENTAUTHORIryFollo|rrlrq the multlple flaods ol 1992, a St'te Gn/emmant Task Fonerommemed a oro(esg to undefale studleg of the floodlng of th€ GanierRlver thal ovrr a numbe! ot vears, lad to tie develoFment ofth€ cawlerRiwr Flood Mltigatlon Srhelrlr. The partneE of that proress, the StatrGovemme.n. the Northem Adelalde and garossa Gt(hment WrterManagerErt Board and the [olsthuert Colnclls, ag]ed that theStheme rueded to be managed by a slngle enttty. Thl5 tlras d$lgned moverome the larg8 numbgl of organlsatlon6 hdth adF nlnBttusInterests In the out(ome of t}te works, to dellverthe prolert and toprwid€ for th€ ongohg malntenrnre of the work!.

A5 a (onsequenre,In 2002.the Cawler Rtv€r Floodplaln ManagementAuthorltv GRFMA) was forrmd a5 a Lotal f,ovemmert ReglonrlSubildlery hy tie latrhme|tt Counclls h€lng Melalde Hllle Couftll, theBar$sa Coundl, Town of 6awler, Llght Reglonal Counrll, Dlstrld Coun(llof Mell:le end Cfry of Playtord.

SlrEe lts lnceptlon. the 6RFMA hrsgtrbllshsd a uork prcgram toaddnss the floodlng issurs assorlated e,lth the Garder Rlver. Thls lrorkpmgram featu|es thrce maln tomponerts:

- The conitrucllon of a Flood Cortrol Dem on the North Pan Rlver oaar6awler. (Complet€d Detemher 2007)-The ralslng of the dam wallofthe South para Resen€lr ry up to 156(entlmeues and modlflaatlons t0 the dam spllhtay to pmvldE a tloodattenuatlon (apabllltv to thE dam - thls worl lrlll be undertaken bV SAwlter.- Compl€tlon ofti€ Mepplng Prolertto ldemlfothr lmFact ofthe March2007 e5dmetEs and to ldertlfu strteglE to mltlgate the lmpact offloodlng. (stagE On€ (ompletd February 2!08)

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS PROIECTThe 6RFMA has rommlssloned uRPs, In a:sodatlon wlth swanburvPenglas€, to prepare an op€n Spare strdtrgy fqr the Gawler Rlver, fheOpen Spate Stntegy will establlsh a stlategk framemrk to coordlnltqellotts l0 lmpro\re and manage open spere along the Calrle. Rl!€r ftomthe confluenre to the marlno outfall.

The prolect has been undertaken in acodance wlth the lollow|ng flvesElE€s:

'1. Backgound fesear(h.2. Stte Analysl5 and prepiratlon oflssues Paper.l. Pr€llmlnarvConsultatlon.4. oraft open Spat€ Stritegy Plan.5. AddidooalConrultatlon.

14 PUR,POSE OF THE OPEN SPACE STRATEGYThe Open Spare Strategy povide6 a frame$ork lrhkh coqrdlnates their$om ofthe varlous Counllls and Govemment Departments whllere€ommendhg Etrdtegles and actlons to eddress erMmnmemal andre(rcatlon.l ls5ues. lt brirBs tqgether the results of the barErclnd.esear(h and site anal]rsis togdhet rrlth an assessnEnt of th€enlrlonmental yilues, landscape rhaGder and rerreatior al lsage oftheRlver. lt lderdfles the key lssuer (onftonllng the rlver ard pro/ldes anAdion Plrn dEslgrcd to lmprove the manag€mentofthe rfvEr.

.

lntroduction

May. 2009

PE4,d no. ur!41


2. ANALYSIS

2.1 INTRODUTTIONThlg dapter provldes a summery of the batlgrcund rBsEarthduing tle pnleratow stag€s of the opsn Spare strat8gy. ltrangs of lsiue: and opporh,mhles fatlng ths oavrler RL€t t{hkh are

llhstnt€d on the Analylls meps tollolrln! thls chaptet

2.2 STRATEGIC AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXTThe 63wler Rtwr open Spare Stntpgy slts tldthln a strdteglc and

leglslatlve &tl|oft establl6hed by Stete and to(al Govemmgnts. The

covemmelt, through hs varlous stretsglE6, and lotal c nrlls,thelr Surt4lr Managamen plans, prsvld8 r romprehenslvEwhlrh guldes the dlstrlbudon of resources. In addldon, State and

Goremmgnts are responslble for the lmplemertatlon ot ! wlde nngrlegkladon t{hhh lmpatts on the managrneit and malntEnence of5ptte.

0udng th€ prepaGtlon ofthls opgn Spacs Shat€gy, EarEful

rrrds ghren to sll Govemrnent l€glslallon and stateglei which may be

rcler,anre to the managemed of the Cawler Rfue.. In :umlnrry, ltfound that:

- The stete Govemment, thnugh hs nnteglr plins, stronglvpEvldon of recreadonal f"tllldes end InltlatlvEs whlrh em@ragephvskal edlvw.- The CelJ{lsr Ftuer has bran ldsrdned W a number of Stat€, ReSlonel

Lo(al stratsgl( plans as b€lng slhable tor the dsvelopm€nt of a

llnecr parl whkh provldes Etreatlonal opportlnhles whlle also

erulmntltental Ghabllltatlon obledlves.H4leitrr, lt ls recognlled

developmerf of a llnear rB(reldonal prrk ilong the Garler Rlvlr ls rtBrm goalvrhlch tan only be rchlEved In 'blts 5lzr'rhsnks and by

lnldal r€sour(Es on sEctlons ot the fi,€| dose to urban ar€as such as

and Angle Vals.- A number st 'Eni|rcnmenlal' AtB requlE the Gauder Rlver to bo

m:nagd ln e Justalnable mannar. In partlolar, land ownen mustthe s!rcad ofureedr.- Leglsladon erlgt5 to formallsE agre€mE[ts brtv'nrn pdvatE landand the gtate Clrl€|nm€nt In ldef to astabllrh rEoeadonal tnlls.an agaa€mer$ mF'/ be u3€fu1 tD provlds rEqeatlonal Eonntqdon5panels of publlrly wrned land adlolnlng the rlver.- Then b a lark of polky conslttency whhln tlle four lo(3l cormlloEvElolm€rt Plans whl(h co\€l th€ Gatvls Rh,er.

2.3 EWIRONMENTA mmber of sllrlffont studle! have been undertakrn lmo theEnvlonmEntal ls$es ladng the Gawler RlvEr. These hclud€ an EPA itudylrno t}te etrvlronmedal cvate. requlrertents for ths Gawler Rh€r Sysiem(inrludlBth€ North and South Para Rlversl, a ?002 envhonrtentrlasgessrEnt h 106A and, nEre recedlv, a number of studles prepared byAustrnllan Watef Erylronm€rt3 {AWE} In |€ladon to the erMonmentellsltes fadrE the Gawler Rtue.-

Thrse sodies hat E found thet the Gewler RfvBr system has been sa,rrelvmodiffed by thr efftrts ot land dearanre fam dams rnd the ronfilrllonof rcservolrs. lt ls astlmatrd that thess modtflratlot* heve resultrd In

amurd 60% of lhe rEtural vraler flow of the rlver syst€m b€lng dtveftedfor onsumptilre ure. flrior to Eumpean settlemem, tfle natunlflowGglme ol tie Gawler Rf,rer would heve vatled fiom no floyv to lrrgpfloodlng Frerds. VEgetadon would hnrp bsEn dlnlnated by nd gum(Euramtls ramaldulensls) ind dver bor (Euralyptus lartlfloGns) wlth anopen understorEy ol mited shrubg and gras5es.

lmportendy, from an envlronmental and land$ape psrsp€tthre, therlparlan vqetatlon of the Garder Rlver rcmalns domlnated bV th€ laqedvsr rEd gums whl(h werE evldert it the time of European 5€ttlemed.These tr€es prorlde an almsst rontlnuous ranopy alsng the dverwhile alsopruvldlrlg many hollows and roosting shes for blrds. ln @nttast. thEorlginal undsElorev vegetatlon has been sa/enly modlffed as a reslltof lntenglve gredng and largEly ronslsts of a range of lntmdured shrubs,

t|Ees and grass€s. These introdued weeds include ollves, ash, fennel,pdrklypear, artkhokethlstb, slohhthlstl€, raltor oll plad.lrlld orts and

Afrlren bonhom.

Natlv€ flsh, In(ludlng congglll, blue spot gsby, small mouthed hardyheadand (ommon jollytall n€re folnd ln tlte Gwler Rlver. How€ver, theseflsh often hwe a vprv llmlted dlstrihrdon and a number ot wate. barderswnhln th€ rlvef chann€l havE ti€ potendal to lmpatt on thelr r{gratlonupfieam. A number of lntmdffed smdes of tlsh ere al$ pnsent In the&Er lndudlng EurDpean rarp, goldttrh, redfln p€rdt and mDsqun! nsh.

A ngtable fsatuG of the lower Cawler Rlver syst€m is the gu*land Parkestuadne t|,stlard lihlch rias artmdaly (reatsd by the dammlng of themouth of the r[,er some 75 yea$ ago. The Euckland Park e/etland fllls ftomwinter ralns ftd bV the !a!'ller Rlver and 15 tonsldered to be ths mostslgnlfiant ftesl ,at$ wetland on the Melalde Plalnr, Thls lrdemonstEted throlgh the number Erd varlety of rnlgntory blrds - 5ome of$rhkh arc llsted on the lapan Arlstralla Mlgratory Bld Agreement - wlthlnBlrkland Parlc ln eddltlon, Blrturnd Park Frdld€5 a valuable hr€edlnghabltit tor a lrld€ nngE of lvrterbldr. Regllar Inlndatlon ls requlred to

ensuE thal these bEedlng hrbltats.emnln viable.

ln rehtlon to lss|]rs ot envlrcnmental flolr, Drev|Dls studlEs het e foundthat the maldenarue of the connection bgttieen the upper ftesftwBt€rrea(h€E to the sea and Buckland Park is of utmost lmportance. Thisconnecdon 19 necessary to allow for the mlgction of natlve flsh speclssand for the transter oi organlc debrls from the cat(hmern to the estuary.Annual flows wlth a 2-3 monlh duration an Gquired to slstaln BucklandParkwhlleflows are alSo nqulrQd nery 3 years to malntaln water qualltvIn ery p€trnenent FoolS alonE the lower sectlon - malnly to reduce

sallnity. Flood Ercnt! are neressery every 10-2! year5 Inorderto malntalnthefloodplaln and tD provlde oqanlr lnputs to the rhannel,

The managernmt of erMronmertal flows should be comblned vdthIehabllltatlon lnltlatfveswlth a vlewto ncDrr€ctlng the dpadan zonelnlththe floodplaln. Thls rould be ethlevrd thmugh the fonslderdlon of malorwetlands ln assodatlon u,tth tloodllaln rehabllltatlon,

ErMonmental studies hlve shown that the e(qlogiral (oldition oftherlver could b€ greatly impro/ed timlgh ths rernoydl of weede romblnedtdlh (rryrEetatlon lnltlatlves and the restrlctlon of sto(k atcesB.ln addltton, lt has bEen rerommended thrt arty e(ologltal impnvernenttiprks should lnitiallyfqrus on the permanent de€p pools found along therieer. Thl5 i5 be(ause the deep pook lupport a hlqhet dlv€rslty of aquatlcand tenesolal specles than suno!nding landscap€s.

More .ecently, Auctnllan Wtrr Envlronments (AWE) ha' mapp€d thedver to determhe thE extent of pert plaot lrdedatlon, native veg€tationcoverege and phyllcal condlllon ofthe rlver brnkr. Thls napplng€terlse h;s hplpedto pdorlti!€ rahabllltatlDnwork! along th€ fverthrougheroslon lontrul mea5urei, p€$t pllm errdl(atlon and protectlon of natlvevEgetatlon. AWE ha5 also preparcd a series of more detall€dEhabllllatlon adlon plans whl(h forus on a number of pflorlty areas.These prlodo afeae a'r reflected in th€ Open Space Strategy and hirebeen ldentlfi8d based on thelr attrlbutes fmm a rerreatlonal polnt of vlewes mll e5 fo ! thElr rElrtlve errylronmental lmpoftinle.

2.4 LANDSCAPEThe Gawler RivEr meandErsirross the Noihem Ad€lalde plalns anddl9(haqes into the guqkland par& estuarlne yr€tland compler. Belor6a!tler, there a|e few neturdl dralnage lines flording into the river. The riverred qums, whkh deine thE river ftom Gawler to the coast, an a domlnantland5cape feature.

The slze of the channel redues as lt rove5 downstream. N€af BurklandPe*,the chennel becomes hard to detlne as lt enters open semphlre

Mir, roo,Pg5

lob r&,8043

- Sites otAltHlglnal hE ltage signmcanre along the Galvlor Rhrer cannot

dlsturbed vdtlFut tl€ appro/al of the State Govemmerli


coumry. Bed sedlments wlthln the Gards Rlv€t ars \?lrallyrl ffnp sends wille thE sedlm€ntr In the bank ate rompdsed of flneslltr, and rlavs. fhamel rqldths vary from 15-45 met|€s vrlth d€pthsnnglnB frqm 4-5 rllet|es, The rfuer channel i5 |elath€ly artfue and

a typkal meand€rlng styls. &lden{e ot thls ls shown Wfloodplaln fualureS such as tlood rhary€ls and f0m8l channels.

ilale lengths range from 40-120 mrtres ti rcugh thls 2one,

P or to Euoprart rgttlemsnt, it is bellered tfEt the Gawlel Rlwr lsto heve bem multl-channElled and that, dudng petiods ot hlgh Ror,dyer rhamelg v{olld haw gpllled onto the sunDundlrB floodplaln.ls llkely that the lower sectlons ofthe dver would hrve rEs€mhled a

roasttsl silnmp wlti no peneptlble tontlnuous iwr channel system.

Slme Europ€an settlemsnt, glgntflrant chang8s havE onlned to theGaurler RhBr. MostDMoushagbsentheslgnlflranteartltwo*swhlchroninpd the dvEr to onE laqer channel, ln addhlon, the lo/vet sertlonsthe Gwler RtvEr hays geen the ronstructlon of laEe floodto prsteEt adjlr€rn Inlrsstrdute ard lard u56. Thet€yrhkh al€ oft€n fi'ro to three rEtres hlgtler tian the l€{el of thefloodplaln, have rc$lted In tie lo55 of lmFortat erMtonmental flo.rstwren the dver rnd th€ flodplaln, e:repl In t€ y hlgh flow eventg.

2,5 RECREATIONOpen spacE pleys an lmportatrt role In meetlng people! Gtt8atlonalboth strudurcd (through shbs and slhools) and unstrunucd. ltopportunlty 60r nlaFdon, (ommlnlty lnterartlon, hralth and

chlld|sn'r play rnd sdlrl ds€lopmenL Open spate als! pmvlde! a

of other tunctlon! lffhdlng the prststlon of oatunl featuE and

slt*, tha manig€mef't of stormwater, the t.satlon of recreatlonal

llnkage! and th€ establhhment ot toutlst desdnatlons.

Wllen vl€$ed at face value, the 6adet Rlvef prcvidEs an erellentoppoiunlty to addE3s r6te|tt rerrPatlonal frnds and b ensqurdgE

ptryslcil advlty amongst th€ ganeral rommunlty. 'Ihis opporfrrnltyb€en hlghllghted by a number of r€(reatlon and open splte strategiesu,Ell bV the Induslon of ths Gawler Rlver as paft of the State

Mrtropollten op8n Spare systrm (MoSS. Hs{ever, tiere are a

sllntff(ant lssues nhkh must be (arefully rddnssed pdor to ther€rllsition of a lln€ar recreatlonal parl along th€ tlvet

MDst slgnlfirintly, a(ess to the Gewler RlyE lsttE slngle mlstlssle trom a noBrdonal pofn of vlew. Tns f"ct that a slgtdflGntproFortlon d the RlvE h ln prtvate oirfleEhlp, tqgetief wlth th€

diffirult to establlsh a [oordlnated apprcach to the provlslon otre(eatlonal facllhlrs alongthe Rhrer.

Wth thls In mlnd, lt ls not ronsldercd €3s€rtial that a ijtuc reffeauonaltreil tolloffi thE €ralt allgnment of the 6awl€r Rlyer. opportunities exlst

for a trdllto depart f|om the dver corddor along some sedions In order lsfollqr nearby oads. Thls vrquld also allow for @nnedions to be pro/dEdto other attcdlons andfadlides. lt wlll also be lmportant that a sedes ofltops or shorter rEoeadonal trdlls off tfie mJn rlver trall bs rreated,Ettellent oppor&nltles exlst ma! th€ tolyns of Gawle! and Angle Vale lolonnert the rtver wlth €rlsth! lesldantlal areas, shopplng prednrts, otherrerreatlonel farllltlBs, lnterestlnq erMronmental feat!res and s(hool5. Thetrdllshould also, wherc pssilble, prsvlde an altem.tive mode of transFortfort$os€wlshlnito commute towork. otieropportunltles to Insrease theuie oftheurllshould be consldered lncludlnEthe lnstalladon of publk artsuch ai sqllptlres or muralg.

lr{hlle h will be neressary to pnpele detellod de:lgn9 for arly futuGGcreatlonaltnll, it is conrldgred aFpropdab that the trdllshould be

deslgn€d to a(commldate a ringe of user grqrps. shared-us€ traili vlillenrourdge greEter u$gE and allow lrurer5sd levels of acress for r wldersectlon of th€ populatlon, however, they mllst be ca|€fllly deslgnEd tomlnlmlse the rtk of ronfllct betr,leen u5crs. ln some lases. thls can be

arhlevrd through appropdate tlall wldth, seperatlon of paths, tJ|e use ofglgnege ind the pomstlon of (odes ot prartl(e.

A reoeatiqnal trail along the length of the GaBler Riwr ls llkely to be

heavlly utlllsed and valued by a lange of us€r group5 for a rangE of rea5ons.

Sectlons of the tall should be d€slgned to often (at€. tor cyrllsts, walkaG,joggerg, Inllne skatr|s and th8 mobllw ImFehed. onre complsted, theoewler RhnrtGllwlllbe of cglonal slgntflc:ncE and wlllprwldeoFportunhles lor Inter-slburban trav€l for rommutlng, re(eatlonal ortourlsm puryoses.

6lven the rarEe, titn€ss lsnlg and numbE of usDrs thet are llLely to be

attrarted to e rcrrerdonal trdll along the 6awl€r Rlver, safety$nilderatlonr trLe on greatet lmportanrs. Slmllady, rccess fur a wlderrange of user groups, In.ludlng those grlth moblllty lmpelrnents,ls llkelvto ha,e a greeter i[fluence on the deslgn of the tnll lhan rNould br lherlt€ In a rural trea.

2.5 HERITAGEThe|e have been a number of dudles and surueyr und€rtaken to Inwstl-gate both the Indlgenous and non-lndlgrnour hedtage 5lgnlflcan(e sl the6a$/ler River and su.mundlngland.

Indlgsrols HsrltagsThe North€rn Adelalda Plaln5 form Dart ofihe terdtodal lands of theKaulna natlon, TherE arp 13 r€mdrd sltes Df lndlgenDus slgnlflranceaound the L6lGr lawler Rlver. These sltes have been ldemlfled byherltage $rveys, the Reglster of Abqdglnal Sltes and ObJFds maintainedbythe oMglon of Aborlglnal Aflalrs and Recontlllation a5v{ellas loratlonsgleaned flom hlstoft referemes and South Australlan Museum rccords.

Predous studles (such as Wood mM) hevE ldentltled theerchaEologtel s€nshlvlty of the area as belng hlgh wlth e vaiety of slteslncludlng fudal5, rnounds, stone artefrrt s(atters, ovens, s(a(€d tree5ind historlr camps. The5e ilte5 provide !n importart retod of ttle Kaumapeople! former c(Upatlon ofthe Lovr€r Garrler Rfver, lhey help tode$dbe the origlnal inhabltad's way of llfu, the food they ate, theifcustoms and the ehElt€B that they bullt. The cawl8r Rtwr appslrs tohave been lmportartto the slbslstence of thE Kaurna people - lt lrovldedfood glrh as flih, yebblrs and $nter blrdg whlle the laBr rh.er red Eumsprovlded brrk for the ronitrurtlon ol canoE: whlrh, Wod belleves, mryhave bEEn us€d ln tlm8s of flood of to navlgate the waters of the Portcawler e5tuary.

A rerent cultuElhedtage survey undeftaken byAust|allan CulturalHerltage Managemed Pty Ltd (A[HM) has ldentlfled tvro eddltlonalAbo ghal sltes. ThesB sltes lyerE desdbpd as 'CultuElly Modlfled Tnes'and featurE 'large srari on Rlv€r Red Gums whlch lndlcate that bark rr!5removed to create shields. The proteEtior of th6e, as well as all othersttes, rilll be an imoortant element of the future menasemert of theCawle. Rtger.

Nolalldlgsrc{r HsrltsgoThen an also a slgnlflmffi numbEr d slt€s 0f non-lndlgpnous he tigeslgnlflrante wlthln thE area of lrfluEnce of the Gawlar Rlwr. ThesE slt€sinrlude a numb€r of dwelllngs built b€tween the late 1840's and 1880's.Some ot the rnost Slgnlficam ot these belng the Buf,tland Pa& homegteadon Pon Cai.der Road and ThomboEugh Farm on BlostefFoad.

other. non-resldentlal. sltes ln(lude the Bucklend Park Lake, tip frmprPod Gewl$ West 5cho!1, the cosslng of the Rlver at BakeE Road endthe form€r road to the Gawler estuary. These 5lte1 along vdth the lorm€rdwelllngs, palrt a plqtute ofthe life ofthe early settlers. Asisthecasetoday, the land was us€d primadly torf"rmlng. The eady s€ttleE also faced

slmller pmblemr as todav's larmers In terms of the mgular floodlng of theGawler Rlver. Thp Roodlng led to tGnsportatlon problems wruch rosultedln the (onrtrudlon of a wharf at the Cawler estuary whlrh, llthough notreallsed, sns lnterdsd to form the basls of a leGer Fort wlth esio[lat€ds€tuemErt.

Pg6lsb n!. urlHl

Mly 2009

llolatton of th! trlblldy ovnEd 5ediDn3 of the RllBt, meenc that h wlll


2.7 FLOODINGThp Gewter RtvE has had a lotB hlstory ot floodlng rahlch ha5 had a

slgnlffrant flnandll lmpast on nea6y farnlng and rcddetdalThe most rBcsnt severe tl0od ocolmd In 2005 ,{hele tlDod watrrsgvrr tt|s bants of the rlr,8r and spread nofth atd squth aleE thsolaln.

In February 2008, the 6awl€r Rhrer nod Flrlo Management AutholttvrerelrBd a series of flood Inufdadon rnaps ac(ompanlrd bV a tethnkelrcpqrt prpparcd bv tunnlhn t/rhter ErMronrnents (AWQ. Ihls stlound that, de6plte the constotdon of the nsfl Brum Eastlr& Notth F

Floorl Mltlgafon Dem, patts of the lDtrar Gawlet RtYEt flootlplaln wlllbe at dsk ot tloodlng. The rnapplng has ldEntlflsd that3,850 Orcp€rtles In the 6ewlet, Llgtt, Mallala and Playford Cornclls

bE at rlsk from a t h 100 year flood.

MoE speclffcally, the mrpplng indlca&6 lhfi the malotltv of flowa 1 In 100 year event rrlll b€ak out upsueam ol Angle Vale nealRoad and will head In a north-l|€st dlrectlon along S€lt Cr€Ek towadsWells. The mapplng also predka a smrll breakqJt near AnSle \rale

mav ttave some lmpaft on fie torrnjhlF.

lmFortantly, urhlle the mapplng lndltates thet the extent of e 1 ln 100

flmd slent wlll b latge, ths ma,iorttY of the ana ls rated as bslfq ofmoderite flood hazad due to shallow dapths and low wltdtlBsftom tha brcad, flat floodpla|Ir Ttle hlgh and extnme flood huadan confimd to parts of Gawlrr, the maln ttver rhannEl, the malnto the north-rEst neat Wngate Road and ne3r tlre outlets ol ttERher and Thompson CreeL

The cawler, PlMord and Mallala Coumlls an curentlv pl€ledng a

Management DErlslopmellt Plsn AFEndmeft (DPA) whlth ti'illthe fl00d maps whhln tislr Dsnlopme'lt Plens and Introduce polldes(!m|ol delsloFnent on the flood pbln.

2.8 NORTHERNEXPRESSWAYThe Northrm BrpEss$rytJill pmvide a nev! llnk between the StunHtghlvav at 6avd$ and Port lvbkefeld Road. lt wlll be a 23

tno-lvdy exprllsi$gy whkh ls dFlgnsd to lmpm!€ th€ trdnsport ottomlng trom the Bamisa Vallet and the Ftuedand.

The Northsrn Etptessw€V lrlll (rcss the Cawler Rhnt nrtr WlngEtrIt ls understood that the osFartmsnt of Ttansplrt, Energy and

trfiastruEturo (IITEU hes FrFarod a ntJmber sl studles ln GlBtlon toenul@nmental, cultual and rEcEaoqntl olportunltlet and @nstrahtsesselaGd wlth the Gairler Riv€r c|os5lng. lo pafdculat, oTEl has

commlssloned a plannlng gnidv whlrh s€eks to imsdgatQ the feaslbilltyof construdlnE a shared-use ball along the Grwler River, between

Wngate Road and the Eawler town tentte.

2.9 POPULATION CROWTHwhlle a slgnlffrant pmpordon of the Gawler Rlver llows thmugh farmlngland, ths northem |eglon of Adeleld€ 19 faclng $brtantlal lrban growth

ovE th€nmloto2oyEars. In partl(ular, it i5 llkely that the tsltn qf

GawlerS population wlll In(ease by around fl,,000 people (up fmm thecunent 20,000) over th€ nelt twenty years.

Mdltlonal gromh rterr the cewler Rlver 16 llkely to o[cuf at Angle Vale

whe|€ the populadon ls foretast to grorj by m Feople between 2006 and

2016. In addltlon, the anas around Munna Pan ind VlBlnla an likely toexpsrlEnce ronsldenble gmvvth. Ihl! ls nflected In the g|glrth fotetrslsforthr 0tl of Plaviord whth antklprte an addltlonalI/0T5 people across

the Council area bv tie vea.2(n6,

slbstartlal plpulation grchrth ls also posslble at Butklend Pa* nealvlrglnla. The popoled tolntryTownshlp'at Burkland Pa*,whlrh ls belng

arsessed under the Major DwrloFment pro(e55, lnvolves the ronstructlonof e tolvnshlF t! holse apprcrlmstsly 15,000 peopl€ on a 1,000 hedareslte at Brrkland Pa* betmen vlrylnla and Port oawler. The prqposal al5o

ln(lud6 a tsi{n (entre and assollated tqmmunltv and rer.eatlon fadlitles.lmportantlv the Bgtklard Park pruposal Inrludes flood mttlgatlon vrorks

and the provlslon of a le&ertlonel trail along tie CaYvlef Rlver.

A5 de$rlhed abo,,e, the poFulatlon qf the no*hem reglon ol Adelaidr ls

llkrly to gmw substantially o,/er the n€rt trr€nty years. This g6wth has

slqnlffrant nmtflGtions for the 6a!'rler Rlver ftom both an

envlonmental and e(Gatlonal point of vl€{. lt ls likElv thet additionalglowth wlll plare prcssum on the rlwr t.om an envhonrnental peEpestlve

whlle also increaslng the potendal demand for th€ Ftsvlslon ot ar€crErtlonal trall alonE the length !f the rlveG

Analysis

ri y, zoos'D37'

Irb io. ttr!4tStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 215 of 431 6 November 2017

tgc8l{D

'^- 6 Yler Rh|€|^

All$nsrt

':. Msp Bsundart

Key Map

May 2009

PgBlob .ro. tt043


:.Mouth of Giwler Rlver

(+ Edsdtlgtnl

€-<: Rlver Allgnrnert

Coundl goundlly

lP puott '."nu

MO55

Analysis Map A

LE6B{D

AEtti,ltv Nld€

SltE uf EMmnmerblDr Cultml SEnmrarue

May 20tE

Ps9l9b ro.1ru4:l

lssues 6 0Doortunities- Nstd lnterpretltE shelter atend of Fort Grwl€r Road showlngsigns ofvandallsm- ActMty node p.o\|tdes mor€ opportunitlei for rerreltlon andtourlsm, eg: Bld hides, boardwalks. fomalls€d smalllrdft €rcesslamp (&avak)

- Fos5lbletou|s of 8u(kland Pafk Wetland

- Acers to Bukland Park Wetland inwlves crcsslng private land- There i5 evldemeofrubblsh and vandallsm at Fort Gawler- The Burkland pa rk 'Coumry Townsh lp' Major Prulect may have€ lmnmerdal lmpllratlone assorlat€d wlth Gwlef Rlve. andexlstlng vegetauon.lt also Fro/de5 an opportunw to estahllsh a

llnEar park ydth reseatlonal fadlltles.


l.Hlrtort Hontoiterd, TlFmbrclah EsratE .^e Rhnr Allgrurtem

Cofidl Eoundary

# *u"t't,'t

Analysis Map B

@

MaF.2009.

Pg10,0! no. {I,0a3

4Yln€yeds Edlat€nt f lo!tb!e!

7.Csr prrl cumntly us€d ry loun ll lo slorldl€ spoll

lssues 6 0puortunltles- Potentlalto lmludetrail and Intemretatlon,- BaleB Ford Crosslng 3ubJect to regller flood lnundatlon. TemFnry lgvee lnstalled dudng flood snnts- Rell llne holds beck flDod fl6!s 0n eest€rn bank. Flow5 reguleted thmugh

l,r€rts under the rall lln€,- BakEE Road weuand provides a good qampl€ of imprwingerMrunm€lrtalrondltlon of vrater quallty along the river.- Addldonal fundlng requhed to complete tenestdal and aquatlc plandng

- Posslble locdon for lnterprellve tfall and recreatlon

Inf rastructure, l-e. sheltet. Gr park cunEr ly uled bv rouncllto dump spoll- The Burklrnd Fark 'fountfy Townshlp'will require additlonalfloodmlffgatlon works,- TherE arE a number of Absrlglnal Herltage sttes dosE tq Gawler River.


ITIEEI\IE

O on*n*uSfte of Ervlnnrnmtalor Crh.ral 58 filanle

(+ lEdsdngfal

A- RlvsAfgrunam

::. .ComOtBomAay

6p euurt r"ru

I e:craclrn tndustry

MO55

Analysis Map C

May 2009

PC 11

lo! no. lDo4l

lssues 6 0pportunities- AM tlawldns Memorlal Park appears to have be€n upgrdded some20-30 Vea|s ago. The park ls severely overgrqvn wlth wEEd5 tsnd park

infrdetructure ls dllapldated.- Substartlal portlon ofpubllc land (C.ovrn Land) under lease hold toshercl"tm€rs, adlatent to cawlef Rlvel- Plannlng SA are dlsruselng a Fosslble lrnd swep wlth land on'neE toestebllsh a llnaerrE$n e elong the fvef- PotBntlal t0 develoF land as rlver reseryE ln Frcximlty to to|nshh ofAngl€ Vale.-Potentlalto rreate tnll loop wlth llnk toAnglE Vale and sch@ls etr,-Potenlalto provlde lntErpntlv€ slgnage for formBr Methodlst Chunhand C€mEtorv


r^{u/H

TEGEND

ArtMty Nsds

Edsdng Trall

Rlver r{Enmem

Cl|[Ell Blundrry

1 luogarE Road fnrd . 0lfffrult a.csr forpdartrirtt ad qdhts

2. Ptarsons Road - Flblk aar6s to tlr€Rlv$ lr dstrktrd

d *otnt"n

F.!r Fotqfilal fuUle UrbalHg crordr arua

M055

Analysis Map D

Pg 12Fb lo. O04l

lssues 6 0Doortunltles- Pad( lordftd at the rorrfllenre of North Para and South Pan Rlversha5 been ccelttly redeveloped.- Posslbl€ balleltenslon wed along Lolver carvler RlvertermlnatingatWlnc|(elBddge, to form l@p trallln oa','!ler south.- Posslhle rsvEgetatlon opportunltles hrthls sectlon of Rl!€f.- Psterdalgrsryth ot cawlertotheeast alongrldeths Cawler Rlverneeds to be Co-ordinaled to r(hleve enlronrnerfal lmprovgment!and th€ prqvlslon of E(Eatlonal fadlltlss.- Future urbtn gfqyvth heed5 to avold flood pone ana9.- A((6i to the Rfuer is f€Etricted by'Pdrnte Prcperty' slgns, erren 0nF!bllc Land- Remove erotl( vegetatlon- Estlbllsh vl€wlng pol||ts along P€arsons Road

- Rubblsh In Rtver ls lmpedln! flow.

2. nlbh{sn in Rl,rer conldor Inpeder ilw 3. 6aal€r Rll8r Pow tlub

4. Srornrnte! drlh ftett to ttrflod Rd4, Er.tE Vog€lrtlon bloab vldv|ng pohts

May 2009


3. ATflON PLAN

3I INTRODUCNONIhls gettlon of tha open Spate Strdtegy palltde! a retles of Stntrgit fDlllryed by sFprlflc actlons urhlthheve b€en dnfted to lmprove the managgm€nt otthe Grfiler RfveL Actlon plrn establlghe5 a fram€work whkhcan be used by both gtate ard Lo(al fowmments to coordhm thdr and sfforts to achieve

envlmnrmntal and moeatlonal benslttr flr thF 6$drr Rir8t and

1.2 vrstoNThe pstabllshm BrIt of a 'vldon' fDr the future of the Gawlet RlvE I ls a Inldal 9!ep In effertlvely menaglng thlslmporttsnt assst. ln thls v!ay, the stnt€8lc dltecllons nfd actlons ran b€ cordlnlally meesured agelnst

the bnadervls,on to ensurc that the lmplemertadon pr6ess

It ls slggested that th€ vlston lo! the ciwler Rtv€r should be as

3.3 STRATEGICDIREETIONSUndErplnnlng the "vlsion" for th€ Gawler Rtvef aE a set of Strategh whlch functlon as a serles ofmanag€msnt glldelineg. the Strat€glt oltectlons rre. In tum, by a sEt of detalled arthns. Merry of therctrommendd acdons can b€ llnled to moNr than one ofthe Strateqhwhat ls consldercd to be the most appropdatr dlrEcdon.

but they hnn b€en lllatrd under

Tha Sfateglc 0lrcrtlons and Aruons are Grtllned in tt€ tables on

allo lllurtrdted on the maps lorad €t the end of thls chapter.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT

fulloldng pages. Meny ofthe Artlons are

1.1 o€velop a progrdm to lmplementtht ero8lon cofirul, w€ed lemovdl and

reret€ladon recomm€rdrtbns prspl|ed ry Au$Dllan l4her Envlonment5 inrelatlpn to lhe ldentlfred Pdorl1v Arear.

NRMB

Co!ncl19

GRFMA

Hlgh

ll Dr|r€hF a prognft totrdncfur land along thr Gwler River to publlc dwnrrshlp. Surh aprogram gicirh ta€et land adi&ed to crisdng pohlkly oy$ed lind in order to €6tabll9h a

mfitlmrous lloear rssErue. Ensrlrelhel allapplLalloi|s tor the dlvtslon ot land adiolnlig tlndver provide a p!.rbll! regeirB of at leart 5fun along the d$r.

DPT6

fo!ncilgHlsh

13 unlteriake th€ neaessary r€!€gsE|tlln and oroslon ronirol m8rs!rcs to l!fiplets theBaker Road Wsdard. &alrllsh an ongoing maintgnine rqirie ior thewdland and povide appfopdate fafllhier to allar public efte6s fur unstMbrod reoeationdlactMdea.

NRMS

[(!incll9

Medlum

'1.4 Undertak€ an audh of the nomurater pip€a and draina urhlah dhcharqe i.rto lhe Gavder

RllHlnorderto dqternhr$elmnr4othdddlal gullets. on(rthealdh ha5bern com-pleted,l roduc molsqr€rto Edu.e polludon and eroslon.

NRMB

Counrllr

GRFMA

Hlgh

1.5 OFreloF a prqram to eid ldloinlng lard ovrriers to blller manage thtllpro9ertle5 in lder lo rlducr tie SFaad of fteds, pfoted nattve flo€ and fruna and mlol-mise tlle efltry of @llutantB lrt! the dver.

NRMB

CdrncilsMedlum

t.6 Unde ale r8gular tnhhE 0t Colndl oudlor sbfr t! el|slre that thd r

ddlvhlei do not Inpan !n edsdlq n€drc veletiuon and releneradon sltes.

f,ounlllsNRfiB

Medl!m

t.7 D8velop partnel'trip plogrdlns tdlh lo(il sfto!|g ald other @rtrnonlty g.olpr to esslst

wlti sMtonmeital r€habllttation r/orLs.

iIRMB

Colrndl9Medlun

1,8 tlE €bp a teral anlrnal lonnol progarn for tho Gaurlsr Rlvar. NRMB

CqundlsMedllrn

1.9 P.eprre a '8u5hfire Minlmlsltloi plan" for the 6!d€r niver aonrlderlnB lss!6 !!ch a5:

- Reletetadon inltlattlrsi- Md.rleoa'tce rcglme5 to redlte ftel loadsi. Apgroprlata tlla btBaks and othq rnanagemem tethnqler b€t$,een the rfuer

roddo! and adlalent properde$ and. Tt|l provlllon of lppropialg 8rcr3r fir ffiE ffghtlng vEhl!l€6.

ClunrllgcF5

Medl|JlnAction Plan

May ?009

P! l?Fb rlo. IPIH3


2, RECREATIONAL USAGE

Fibd!'..| .,

2,1 Prepare drtalled d€6lqn6 for a shared"use r€deatlonel trail tor vialkers,frll!+t rnd h@ rlnncrhr l'Brh

^trha csl.rOtu* rJvfilfm..lhl. rh.r- 4n"lrl t rld

louncilg0R5DPL6

NRMB

Hl9h

tio alhnnEni ot rhe dver. Hq,|eeer, a derladon fiy fo|rt tle dver may b€ neaesrary wiereland ourn€Ehlp or otier aft€as lsgre5 are encouiteEd.

The trafl shrold te dellgned ti rompkmed t}|e erdjng 'nrtural' settlng and 9ho!l&- Be glrtat4d In hturnen to p.r!,lde an oreo lrd durdble path$ay tlrhi(h can & easily .e-pa|rad

- Er a .nlolmum ot 3rn lo wldlh In ordar m rninimli€ the thance of ftnflldbqtwieon ulers. Llne marldrE shorld also b€ lonshhaed to s€FaralE usa6trdvonlng In opposlto dlGrtlons.- Clntd€r tie 5afety of r.rse|! by bcadng the $all aiE{ ftom itrefly sloplq b&ks, enlurloBdear ri€ryvs ar€ d,allable a'td prqrldftg acaegs td eme8Bnry vehktor.- C@dd€r tlte lostallalbn of lhhts aldg sofle gediofts of the treil e.p€rially in alo5e F@dm-ttv to areas trhkfi people tongrr3ate.- hepare a slqnage strateg to alearlv marl lhe trall, lntotm lsers ot lhelt.e'ponslbinder and ldendt Inlerpetatlon opFronlths.- Eneure that riy lnt€rhle polnB wlth tGff,c ate degllned to mlnlmls€ the (han@ of (on.flirte.- fongider the lcatlon, si?e ard d€6ign ol fadlttks aesodeled with tfie trdll gu[h a9 parklng

atea5, seatlE C@d at regular lnteBala, toilets ad pifil( areas.. Ertabllih an ongohB malnterlarG regime. Thls ghould lnllude the regIllar slashing and temtral of t!eed5, rslnget'atlon littlativ€6 and thB rnonftlnng ofrrit€r qlalltv.

2.2 Cornrnen(e nsgodldons wlth lrnd owner! and developei! to ensule thgt E6eatlonal llnka8ei an estatllihed bs eon ielr rclldfiilal atres end the Glttler River.

Colnd19

OPL6

HIgh

2.! Deeelop a numb€r of 'lrall heads' at 6rwler. Angle Vale and Pon lavrler !o prorlde arclsto the eoeadoflll tlall, ftese trdl heads ghould Forlde car paddng spac6, dlrerdonal andinterprgive dgrago and faclltdes 3u{h as a tdlet, blns, playgm|rnd and pknk arsa

Counllls

OPL6

Metllum

2.4 DsElop a sllto ot tr.rrnltue to b€ Installod along th€ caqler Rlve!.

Flmlaro !h!ld bo of h6d $E llig 8nd llrr melntenan(e fiatetlals su.h as tlmb€r. 5G€l orrcqrhd plastk. Fumttun d€slglE shonld be slmFlr and

ornplementary 10 the ssml-neturel setdng of the carder nber.

ClunrllgOFL6

Medhm

2.5 lodall dq !6te dlspensere/bln6 at the main mtrarueg rrd at rsgllar dtes along thetnll.

Clunll15 Medhm

2.5 Enlounge greater publlc v&ltaion tq gukland Park W€tland by

IrnDlovirg att$3 drqrgh tie salt frelds, pnrnodrg plded to!|g andp|epanng a haslbfllty sljdy Into the developrnent oi ! VlsltorInfonrnadon CenE.

Clurdl5SAlr

M€dium

Action Plan

MEy .20t !l

:Pg 14Fe no. 07!43


1.7 Darelop a !€ter b65ed re(teallDoal tnu ftr canoes aod kayaki llnldng Potl

Kilda.

;awler and Salnl Collnrll

oRsMedljm

2.8 0er'€lop 'fam*ate' Fodule toud5rn olportuhles In a:soclitl@ nltltnll.

lhe rerrgadonal CounrilsAIf,

Medhn

23 Fartldpatr IntlE detelled derign end onrtnEtlon of the l{ortfiem Erp|!tlre Gavder nher to ensure that lel'edetal aod a0vironmsotal benefftg an

raY6L

swdV Ca0t6lng Ot

nhb,ed ftr theCounrll0Pt!6RFMA

Hlgh

3, EFFICIENI MANAEEMENT

St'alDgt Dlrcctlortr

ArLndtltrlnln rh. lldltttl dDtr* ah'' 6n MllnhL ln hM .ffi mnnan ner| stcoutrye Ue asslsanae of o nnge of,td?,t RIE|

tfud Ptbtw Aeot.

aannendatlot8 of the Apen Spocz Stmtagy.

mnranlty Enup6 and laml irfEents hl suppordng tho montgefint olttlr I

An.a.nthr66?al bhalnlhddtm ,J!,r}t 6nl fldhttadftp renl''8 En thr lda

Sa! appro4ote levds of futdhlg ltun a tunge of solstPs lo inpbirent tha t

3.1 Establlsh a lafllof Rlvrr lilorklry 6ro!p corrpd!€d of rep|esendver of tad rdaant Stete Govemrleril0egarlmentr. The tole ottievl6&lrq 6mup

fourdlsNRMS

DPT,6

Hlgh

'lll b€ to orrenaa

tie lnplemmtadon of the Opan Sp@ Stat88y, llordlnate mlrlagEnant i

inldathres alorq lho 6ard€r RIt4! ard !€@re an alFopiatr lml of fisdlng.d malmenlllce

32 E5tatlLh a! anrud torum qf s'iahholdetr and lfllersned Indlvldlals to ! rlde an

)r nldes togetCorintll!NRMB

fllgh

uldste on the lmFlelnmmo!! ol the Open 5p3tD Statrgt lnd to ppdde opl

lnBhred.

3J preFae a Fldhx srd€gy b'5d on the re(dnmended pdotttlEs tofttd5!at9 Strrt€$t

ed In thle open f,otr4rl15 High

u nFfinr.flv.Fdlnrr,lth lr <lonlfiftnt d*rlnnfientlxnrLr lslthln thp de! sr Rtuet Co!ncll.NRME

liledlumt'^r''|ft il|li'.. rhr nrrtrE rd Galr nt rhF 6rl. riih ?h. nmrrtn nt lntand Rerondlladon In od9| tq d€terilne aiy r€3plr&lblitlss undef tfte pr@lr

Alortlrl3l Hadtagr A!t.[E of ths

+PEN

stnt€Ek DlrEcdont

PnmoE the attmatlons ond fadm'' ttlthla the 6wler P.ber tn o@tdo$e udth tE status as o Eghnol end,ontEntnl ond,8fnotlottol osczt.

Use Slgiage along the coler Rlw, and trom swrotndlng ,aads to prwlde deot dMTans lDt ureB as wen os interpntiee in-

lammbn rcgadlag thz hlstoty of tlre orca qnd envtonitental voluz

4l kepare an lntormadon pamphlet oith assoaiated mep detdlhg tie envtmomemal,

hlrtort!|, nq€adond and (ultrnl attrastlon! oflie Gawler Rlver.

lounrllsNRMS

Medium

4.? lndude regllar addes rhhln lo.al newlplFers ad Coudl rcb{ter regrdle theirnllementldon oftilr op€n Spa|e strarcey.

Coumllg

NRMB

Medium

tL3 s€eL th€ looporrdon of Into|ort€d rornmunfry grurpg qr oqalbitlons to aondud tour!hlghlghtldf hirtodlal, aultudl and er ironmental sspsrte of the Galaler Rfuer.

to|lncllsNRMs

lrlodlum

4.4 lnitall conslnom rlgnage at all emrara€! to the 6.*ler Rlver ldefitlfunE:. (eVftatllrsa- RErrathnal fa!llhl65;- App.odrte teoeltldlal rrttvhl€st ard. Code ot condurt

foundllNRMS

Medlum

4.5 lllslaU dl|ecdo|al slgnige and dlstanc€ marl€rs adlaent to t alls rithln the Gawlet Rtuer. Co!n(ils Medlum

4.6 lnttall maior dlrEqdonal glgnr algnB nealbv rnelhl rcad5 ldentlfylnq tfie loc.tton of thrlader RlEr lnd re!|gatlg|al trall

[o|Jncils Medium

4: Llaise y|th lGuma GFeEenlatives lderdned W the Depanned oi Abodghal Afalls andReron.lliation to deeelop opp@tuildec ior Aboriglnal rultllnl hetltage io be ccqnlsqd andIntetfreted in app&priate tiayt

to!ncllsNRME

Medlum

4. PUELICITY PR0MOTION and EoUtATl0N

Action Plan

AIRONYMSGRFMA: Gawl€r River Floodplain Managsnart AuthodtyNPMB: Adelalde 6Mt Lofty Raqes NRM Board

ORS: Ofte for Rerreatlon and SportDPl6: Dspartrnsrt of Plennlng and Lo(al coverm€CFs: Country Flle Servl(e

Itay rzoof

.Pg15

ld no. ('Ui:Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 223 of 431 6 November 2017

TEGE1III

,? --ai\ji Aalvtty Node

0 " t pot"r,tlrl e.d"lty Nod"

$ta of EMEnnentalor Culturdl $gntfrel(€

{.+ E)dstngT6ll

{-} pot*ti"trou

.a€ Rteer AlEnment

Eouidl Eoundary

Recommended

Actions Ma

Maym09

Pg15lob na 0794J

pA

o

Rerommended Artlons- Develop a lhared-use rerreatlonal trall along the Gawlel Riverirom the gu(kland Park 'Country Tqvnshlp'througi the Eu(klandpark Wetland and along Port Gawler Rlver,

" Negotlate Publlr arcess through stltfieldsto Burkland Park

Wetland,- Encourage tours of Buckland Park Wdland and the Mangnvea€e of f,auiler Rlver mouth,- Undenake a foaslbllltystudv lntothe establlshment of a VlsltorInfofmatlon Centie rlmllartothe Salnt Klde MangrcveTrJIl,- !oneiderth€ establlshment of a Water based recreatlona I trdllfor(anoe5and kayaks llnkingSaint Kilda and Port 6awlef.


(!!I

LEEEN!

Actlvity Nods

. PotPatlal Ardvtty Nlde

slE d ErMrlnmenblorfuttural SEnmcantE

(-+ EisungTnll

@ Rotenudtnn

^d RlvErAll$Frent

fqundt gourdil.

Recommended

actions Map B

A\l-l

Recommended Actlons- gel,lelop a shared-use recreatiqnal tnll along the Gawler Rfusr fromBlckland par& 'Colntry Township'to old Port Wakeneld Road,- Ensule that the Buckland Park 'Colntry Townshlp' pmposal establishesa 50n-l00mwlde llneaf reserve along Caurle. Rlver.


At\l,/NE

<+, Edsd|4T'all

@ eorenualtntt

+= RIIBI AlEmtt8rt

tqundl Bujrdary

Recommended

Actions Map C

I.EEE{D-

AdMry Node

Po|E|nlalArdlttY Node

Slte of Envtlr|mertalorculurdt ggrdfrErEe

Mdy2009

Pg'18Fb no. ltll4l

Recommended Astlons- Uryelop a shared-us€ recreational tdal along portlons of the crwlerRlver and along 'back ' rods wiere atcess to thr river 15 dlffirult,- Frovide a number of aces5 polrtq where tht publl( can vlew the d!er.Pruvlde basl( facllltles at th€sE polnts suth as 9eat5 and lderpEtlverlgnage,- oelelqF Fdrm pEdu.etou.lgm opportlnltles i! i5lorlatlon vllth tf|eshared-u5e Gcreatlonal trail.


IIGEI{D

rf\\/ Altlt'{tvNod€

(-' EdstlngTnll

@ go6rtratral

ab- Rhrsr Alfinmmt

Counll Eoundrry

Recommended

Actions Map D

MEym09

Pg 19lob rE @!4:l

Recommended Actlons" ln aisociatlon wlth Future Urban Crowth, cofrtlnue toestabllsh a

llnear reserve of 50-l00mm along Gawler RhrEr,

- lmprov8 aces5 to the Rher ry enabllshlrE a number of vl€qdngpoints wlth arsodated fadlkles and slEnage,-Wdenthe Wnglte Rold Fofd to lmpro,/e Psdertrlan and Cvrllststcle59,- wlere re(reational ac(e5s alongthe Rhrct ls not posslble. establlshr shared-us€ trall along Secondrry Roads,

- Remove rutrblsh In and along5lde th€ Rlver and develop Inhlatlvesto dls[oureee off endeB,


TEGEIIO

^s Gaal8rRiyefAllgnmem

@ potBnulr,"tt

t Wdland

a Rwqetatlon

3. ReqeNtloNral &cessPed€sulan lblryrle

4. l@on5. IrnFwE Mhts

Fidlldss

6, Tnimtcalmlftsandli€atmert of Ford

GafeE Road Ford)

Prlorfu Area 1

- Bakers RoadWetland

!hy2009

PC 20ld.loO0at

lstuo- A.{eit dffidr!


(dn€rth destiH .s P €te F03dl

liftl lr rifff to arhlE* 1O0m

lublhly :cr€Jglbb lhler |etr?rl,e

(corientiy rt€grdbpd ar FAdp ndad)

1. chhre! Rred - ltnErde Publl! etr€ie toRkerlrd hrtall t"dluer

3. Tdrdtt folq€ - Inwl|,? st'rdlrtr ln€nvircnfi anlnl rasloritlon |Yal13

4. Eroior Ro$l - Nr$tlrto Publh etd3!tothe n!€t

tEoEt[0

4- Gafilsr RIw'Allgnntem

6fl *ottrt."no

@) eotematrnit

Priority Area 2 -Angle Vale

holro a(crii 0n€rl trg

'herl' rodl6Eglfitet rptrlts

| 3i!n3

5. Rlverbark3 Ro:d . Nsgotlate PubllE

Mayz009

PC 21

lot io. ll/llt:l

ilagouelebllE rnd r.n.

ilcr:tt oF.ALA

l, llnrB Roed - Estsbllsh a !ltrad-!3otrau oa .&onthry rods


The detalled dBslgn of the Northem Expr€ss{rey6a$rl€r RlvEr Crosdng, whlch ls b€lng prDgruss€d bythe oeFartrnent of tGnsForL Energy and Infrastu|e,wlllfunher Infom open spa(e derrelopme.n elong theCrwlef Rhrer and wlll€omCemed thls open spe{estrfeg9.

IE@HO

^d 6a|rls,Rh,st.alEiraom i

{-il lpou'uurral

1. &UgE:

z Ret|gids|alTnllAlo|lgRlvs

ne6ltffir of Rfinr

PriorityAreaI - Northern

4 WlrB.tE Road fod .14!on to lrnB,q€!de.&lan snd cytllat lar€tg

5. Wnzlf Foad - d6al6p . .h.€d-rrr6 rdlaha€ aca€5t t0 tie RfuE 19not Fr6lbh

:' l"-,

Expresnrvay Crossing

P!22loh io- OO4!


LEGEI'ID

e* 6av'|ef RftsAllgnrE

@) potu,,Ulrran.

-

Rrttrre RsldentlelI DE elopfiEnt

...

Pto|Ha alceii t! rh

1. Eoasls, ArEdrr - Itrffd€ Ert€rr lo thl Rh,or 2. Ttro f&llr Ro.tl . Afiiar. hw1yln{ lid

h brnyirq aralr sdlt|ratetate

ei!e39 to ttE Rltrf

tonlh € etJrtl4 lallth'or4h to Fd|: Para Cirln

4, Par. F-e follrt - nerttolle lemE andcornh$ tnll alom tie Rlvor

5. tortdnoe dlstlng trdl ftel toF.ra Plra C'|llt

Prlodty Area 4 -6awler

MEy2009

Pc 23lt! llo. o04:t

lhrhase lon-lvbtg arEI taa€$lale


From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Attachments:

LYNSLUVBASSETS [[email protected]]Monday, 16 October 2017 12:55PMlnfoGordon MillerYour ref: CON16/46 Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas D.P.A.img009.jpg

Dear Adelaide Plains Council Planning Dept.Many thanks for your correspondence regarding the proposed D.P.A. and in particular thechanges proposed for parts of Carslake Road, also many thanks to Ms. Megan Lewis, who hasbeen kind enough to be of assistance to date. Attached, at the bottom of our submission, is themud map Ms. Lewis asked us to make for her, showing the blocks in question.

Please note; we would like the oppor-turrity to speak when this matter is heard on gctober 30th:Confirmation of this e-mail would be appreciated.Regards Gordon and Lyn Miller74 Carslake Road Dublin S.A. 5501P.O. Box 671Two Wells S.A. 5501.

Our submission:As the owners and long term occupiers of an 32 hectare (80 acre) block on Carslake Road, mywife and I have a keen interest in allaspects of past, present and proposed future developmentshere. When we first purchased our block, Carslake Road was little more than a stone track 11l2cars wide and with the land being heavily infested with all manner of weeds and limestoneseeming to grow from the ground, the land was truly challenging. Times have certainly changedand Carslake Road is now unrecognisable. Firstly, were the Council's limestone quarries, thencame the sale yards, then in ever increasing numbers........a variety of businesses were and arekeen to call our western end of Carslake Road home. Indeed in the time it has taken us to writethis submission, we have heard of another block that has just changed hands, so no doubtCouncilwill soon be receiving another large scale development application.

During our conversations with Council representatives, regarding the possibility of those blockholders fronting Carslake Road and west of the proposed Urban Employment Zone being able tosub divide their blocks into suitably sized portions, it was pointed out that it was intended that thebalance of land on Carslake Road was to remain zoned for broad acre farming, with a minimiumblock size of 100 acres (40 hectares). Whilst we applaud Councils efforts to continue with timehonoured practices, both sides of the western section of Carslake Road are already divided intoblock sizes of approx 80 acres (32 hectares) or less and are very marginal farmland at best. Wewish to point out that we have owned 74 Carslake Road for 22 years and for the last 21 years nocropping, or other broad acre farming activities has been under taken. Personal experience hasshown us that on such small blocks, broad acre farming is simply not viable, yet paradoxically,now, the land itself is too expensive to allow consolidation to larger farming based holdings.Similarly, with number 91 which was purchased about 6 months after us, no crop has been sownthere, nor animals placed on that block. This is the block we believe has just changed hands.Number 132 tor several years, did have a small number of horses on the block, but two (2) yearsago it changed hands and has been converted into a massive and seemingly ever expanding siloand grain storage facility, for Australian Grain Exports. Number '130 was purchase in August 1994and remained largely fallow, while changing hands several times. This property changedownership again this year and now is home to a very large grain cleaning complex, with anintensive animal feed lot to be situated behind it. Further west is number 3'1 . This property wascalled the funny farm when we moved in and has not been cropped since we have been here,with its current new owner (July 2016) sporadically keeping a very small number of cattle. Our


neighbour, Mr. Brian Groeke at number B, who also abuts the Port Wakefield Road, ceased allfarm related activities about 12 years ago and like us, his land also lies fallow. Over the other sideof Carslake road, at number 9 is a smallish piggery, currently owned by Mr Goss and that hasbeen there in one form or another for at least 25 years, but with no additional farming being done.Further East of us of course are the Council's current and past lime stone quarries and a smallscale green house complex. There is also a waste transfer facility further along that has onlyrecently come into being. Of course we also share Carslake Road with the South AustralianLivestock exchange and the large composting facilities owned and operated by Peats Soils

The point we are trying to make is that the sale yards, composting depot, waste companies, silos,quarries and grain cleaning businesses have all come to the western end of Carslake Roadbecause, for them, this rocky and barren land is ideal for their businesses. Whilst The western endof Carslake Road is recognised as being extremely poor quality farming land, it does boast a highmass rated turn off from Port Wakefield Road, a fully sealed and maintained B double route fromthe Port Wakefield Road turn off as far up as Shannon Road. lt (Carslake Road) also boastsexcellent mobile phone coverage (4G), copper land lines, plus a fibre optic cable from Wild HorsePlains telephone exchange to the Sale Yards, with 3 phase power available and mains water. Anadded bonus is that Carslake Road is also a long, long way away from all existing and proposedmedium, or high density housing, Dublin being closest at Skm. All of these things makes thewestern end of Carslake Road aftractive to those businesses, who require sizeable amounts ofland to persue their activities, without coming into conflict with neighbouring properties. Additionalpluses are the very small probability of flooding and the ever present sheets of limestone, whichmany of these larger businesses have turned to their advantage, by mining it as a basic buildingmaterial for their plant and equipment.

Road frontage to Carslake Road is considered to be a very desirable commodity and commonsense would suggest allowing those three or four remaining blocks that front Carslake Road to bedivided into 16 hectare, or I hectare blocks, would allow for further orderly development along theCarslake Road corridor, whilst still allowing room for these businesses to co-exist in a peacefuland profitable manner.

Over the last 20 odd years Carslake Road has continued to evolve. Starting with the allowance ofthe sale yards and continuing to this day, Council has, by increments, changed the nature of thiswestern end (of Carslake Road) to the point that the area is in reality largely a business sector.There are now only three (3) or possibly four (4) undeveloped small blocks left on this westernside of Carslake Road that will sit outside of the urban employment zone, consequently , we wouldask that consideration be given to allow those last few undeveloped blocks remaining on bothsides of this western end of Carslake Road, with actual road frontage, to be divided into portionsthat allow suitably approved businesses, access to those facilities and amenities that CarslakeRoad has to offer. We would further suggest that allowing this to happen would have considerableup side for Council, as with very little strain on already existing resources, Council could, inaccepting these new business ventures, encourage additional long term employment activitiesalong Carslake Road, with all the positives to the area that this would bring, whilst at the sametime expanding its own rateable base.

We areRespectfully YoursGordon and Lyn Miller74 Carslake RoadDublin. S.A. 5501P.O. Box 671Two Wells. S.A. 55010885 292177


Port Wakefield

Long Plains Road,]|ni;i:i

i

i;ilF:;i:V

l

.l * *

westem extent of ProPosedtrrban emPlolmte,lrt zane

.r oj-i

' i Goss's

i, ,,PiBg(r:. il

31

Angello'

91

Just Sold | ^*111,*lcrui"

Export

'la2r9 |

Livestock Exchange I

and Peats Soils I

8

Brian's

f 'af

IHIJ*-:Green hc

plus

curant Q

uses

urryOld Quarries

*

*r

Not

eveloped blocks

scale reference onlYStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 234 of 431 6 November 2017

19th October 2017


Regionat Ptanning

Directions,,..\.1. t,.

P0 Box 67, Springton SA 5235p. 08 8568 2037 m. 04BB 451 970

[email protected]

www.r egionalplann,ngd rectons.con a.

Dear James,

RE:SUBMISSION ON THE DR/qFT NORTHERN FOOD BOWL PROTECTION AREAS

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (DPA)

I write on behalf of Joe and Hayley Trimboli, Mary and Dominic Trimboli, and Michael

Trimboli (my Clients) in relation to the above DPA prepared by the Adelaide Plains

Council, and follows our earlier comments and recommendations submitted July 2017 in

the lead up to the preparation of the DPA.

Comments herein relate specifically to lhe proposed Urban Employment Zone on Middle

Beach Road and the proposed Horticulture Policy Area 3 on the nofihern side of Middle

Beach Road.

It is requested that Council consider a minor extension to the Urban Employment Zone

and at the same time introduce a Greenhouse Cluster Precinct in the area north of Middle

Beach Road in place of the curreni proposal for a general Horticulture Policy Area.

This submission should be read in conjunction with the attached report from Mr Trevor

Linke providing expert comment in relation to allotment sizes and the creation of aGreenhouse Cluster Precinct in the vicinity of Middle Beach Road adjacent to the

proposed Urban Employment Zone.

1. Urban Employment Zone - Middle Beach Road

It is noted that Council proposes to introduce an Urban Employment (UE) Zone adjacent

to the existing Middle Beach Road industrial area incorporating our lot 4 at the corner of

Temby Road and Port Wakefield Road, and Section 332 abutting Middle Beach Road.

Whilst this does not cover the full extent of the area requested by us previously we

appreciale Council agreeing to extend suitable policy for urban employment lands over

these two allotments. At the same time we take the opportunity to request some minor

adjustments to the zone boundary.

The current configuration of the UE Zone would isolate some of our existing farm

infrastructure located on the adjoining allotment (Section 335) owned by Dominic and

Mary Trimboli. lt would be preferable for us to have these consolidated within the UE Zone

along an alignment that also incorporates the eastern portion of the adjoining lot 202 (see

figure 1 below).


Lot 202 is owned by Michael Trimboli and encompasses the area historically associatedwith the Bullens Lion Park. Much of the inlernal road infrastructure and rubble car parkingarea associated with the Lion Park is still located on this part of lot 202 rendering itunsuitable for primary production purposes, A major transport company has alsoexpressed an interest in the land for heavy vehicle storage and transport related activity.

Incorporating part of Section 335 and part of lot 202 within the UE Zone would facilitateadjustments to the property boundaries to increase the area of lot 4 so as to consolidateexisting farm infrastructure, and enable a portion of lol 202 to be used for industrialtransport related activities. The balance of lol 2Q2 and section 335 can be amalgamatedwith the adjoining properties also owned by the Trimboli family.

The proposed UE Zone including adjusted boundaries will facilitate establishment of alliedinduslries to support the emergence of a potential greenhouse cluster precinct in thelocality.

Figure 1: Requested Rezoning

2. Greenhouse Gluster Precinct

We note Council's proposal to create a broad area for horticulture by vastly exlendingHorticulture Policy Area 3. This makes allowance for allotment sizes down to 8 ha in areaprovided thal a water supply is available to the property. In the 1980's and 1990's the TwoWells area was the preferred location for open field horticulture north of the Gawler Riverand protected cropping in the form of glasshouses was discouraged. Allotments 8ha inarea were seen as the desirable size for market gardening in open fields. In more recenttimes the likely returns from open field cropping on an 8 ha allotment are unlikely to beviable. Which begs the question - what is the optimum size of a horticultural allotment?Clearly the answer to this question will depend on the intensity of horticulture developmentand will vary significantly from open field cropping, soil based hothouses, mediumtechnology hydroponics, and hi-technology hydroponics.


Furthermore crealing such an extensive horticulture policy area as is propcised by Council

is likely to result in fragmeniation of rural allotments with no guarantee of orderly and

economic development in terms of the contiguity of development and infrastructure or that

horticulfural land use will necessarily follow. Such areas have become preferred locations

for horse keeping, trotting lracks, and dwellings and Council may find that its policies

become subverled.

The recommendations of the Northern Food Bowl - A framework for future action alsoseem to have been ignored in the DPA notwithslanding the following excerpts appeared In

the investigations section of the DPA:

Goal Actlohs

Horticultural uses appropdately located andzoned

Planning policy thal strongly discourages furtherland division (except in greenhouse clusterprecincts) or housing on produciive land

Planning policy thal supports industryrequirements for a diverse range of allolmontsizes

All forms of horticulfural us€s should besupporled;

Greenhouse clustering should beencouraged where there are industrybenefits in accordance with the guidingprinciples of clustering through a DPA

A greenhouse clusler should allow limitedsubdivision to 2.5 hestares. This is seen as aviable unit size for small-to-medium scalegreenhouses.

Wth the exception of greenhouse clusterprecincls, policy should not speciff uniformor minimum allotment sizes

Council appears to have overlooked implementing the recommendations from its own

report and it is difficult to understand the reasons for this, as the departure has not been

explained in the document. Indeed from a reading of the above goals and actions one

could be forgiven for thinking that they would be reflected in lhe amendment instructions atthe back of the DPA. However no proposals lo create an area specifically for green house

clustering, or a greenhouse cluster precinct allowing smaller allotments down to 2.5 and 4

ha have been included and have been entirely omitted from the proposed amendments in

the DPA.

Furthermore the approach laken, in stipulating an 8 ha allotment minimum, runs counter to

the goal of introducing planning policy catering for a diverse range of allotment sizes whichwas to be achieved by not specifying a minimum allotment size excepl wilhin greenhouse

cluster precincts. Given the shortcomings with establishing an optimum size for open field

horticulture a flexible approach to determining the size of allotment more generally mightbe preferable.

The recommendations emanating from the Food Bowl Sfudy were based on the advice ofindustry experts and we strongly urge the Council to revisit its recommendations. ln the

least it is requested that Council include a greenhouse cluster precinct specifically in the

area shown in figure 't above and allowing minimum allotmeni sizes of between 2.5 to 4ha in area. The revised flood mapping for the Gawler and Light River indicates that much

of lhe area is free from flooding in a 1:100 year ARI event making much of the area

suitable for significant investment in hydroponic growing facilities.


4

The proximity of the suggested precinct to the Urban Employment Zone would be

conducive to synergies with value adding, warehousing, transport, and logistics, and arange of other allied induslrles. The dlfferences in productivity between the different typesof protected cropplng methods and technology is discussed in more detail below but it isworth noting here that significant volumes of production would be required to reachviability thresholds for value adding processing such as bottling, canning, packaging and

freezing, sauce making, and frozen meals in lhe Urban Employment Zone next door.

Industry expert Trevor Linke puts the case for horticultural allotment sizes between 4 and

2.5 ha for medium to hi tech horticulture as outlined in the attached report. He suggeststhat in a medium to hi-tech cluster 2.5 to 4 ha would be the appropriate size, and

highlights that Hi-tech horticulture will evolve as lhe major source of food production on

the Adelaide Plains in lime.

Table 1 below shows a comparison between three modes of production including soil

based glass houses, low lo medium tech hydroponics, and hl tech hydroponics. Annuallevels of production range from 6kg per square metre for soil based hothouses, to 30 kg

per square metre for low to medium iech hydroponics, and 65 kg per square metre for hi-

tech hydroponics. lt is interesting to note that a 4 ha hi-tech hydro operation can yield up

to 2,600 tonnes per annum and a 2.5 ha operation could yield up to 1,625 tonne. Yieldsassociated with a soil based hothouse growing operation on a 4 ha site is only 240 tonneper annum and on a2.5 ha site would be as low as 150 tonnes.

SOIL GLASSHOUSE 1Ha 25 ha 4haDevelopment Costs ( exc Land) $100,000 $2s0,000 $400,000Yields (6kg sq metre) 60,000 150,m0 240,000

Gross Refums ( $2.50 per kilogram) $150,000 $375,000 $600,000

Costs ($'1.50 per kilogram) $90,000 $225,000 $360,000

Gross Pmfrt $60,000 $150,000 $240,000Gross Prof bss 25% loss $45,000 $112,500 $'tE0.000Net profit ( including deprsclatlon) $15,000 $42,000 $70,000

LOW-MEDIUM TECHHYDRO 1Ha 2.5 ha 4haDovelopment Costs ( exc Land) $1s0,000 $425,000 $600,000Yields (30 lqg sg metre) 300000 750000 1200000

Gross Retums ( $2.50 per kilogram) $750,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000

Costs ($1.50 per kllogram) $450,000 $1,125,000 $1,800,000Gross Profit $300,000 $750,000 $1,200,000

Gross Profit less '15% loss $255,000 $637,500 $1.020.000Net profrt ( includlng depreclatlon) $115.000 s250.000 $3f0,000

HI TECH HYDRO 1Ha 2.5 4haDovelopment Cosls ( exc Land) $2,000,000 $5,000,000 $8,000,000Yields (65 kg sq metre) 650000 1625000 2600000

Gross Rstums ( $3.00 per kllogram) $1,9s0,000 $4,875,000 $7,800,000Costs ($1.80 per kllogram) $l,170,000 $2,925,000 $4,6E0,000Gross Prolit $780,000 $1,950,000 $3,120,000Gross Prolit less 10% loss $702,000 $1,755,000 $2,808,000Nst profit ( lncluding depreciation) $310,000 $950,000 $1,500,000

Table I : Estlmates of flnancla! proJectlone for soll - modlum tech - hl tech hortlculturo


Furthermore the differences in projected net profit are staggering with returns for hi tech

hydroponics eclipsing the other modes with net profits of up to $1.5 million per annum on a

4 ha site and $950 k for a 2.5 ha operation. This compares to $540 k for low to medium

tech hydro on a 4 ha site, $250 k for a 2.5 ha operation, as little as S70 k for a 4ha soil

based glasshouse growing operation and $42 k tor a 2.5 ha site. Clearly hi tech hydro is

likely to make the greatest economic gains necessary to support a thriving value adding

induslry and generate significant future employment growlh. Operators prefer smaller

allotments to minimise the cost of land and maximize investment in infraslructure.

Linke suggests that the real future of horticulture rests with the development of precincts

of medium to hi tech horticulture combined with infrastructure and resource support. This

view is consistent with the findings of the Northern Food Bowl study mentioned above.

Medium to Hl tech hortlculture is also more likely to be able to absorb the cost of

overheads associated with the future supply of high quality reclaimed water than other

less intense modes of horticultural production.

Conclusions and recommendations

Council's adoption of an Urban Employment Zone on Middle Beach Road is

acknowledged and appreciated. However we recommend a minor adjustment to the zone

in accord with Figure 1 above so that existing farm infrastructure and a portion of the old

Lions Park can be included within the UE Zone.

The establishment of a greenhouse cluster precinct for medium to hi{ech horticulture in

the locality north of Middle Beach Road allowing allotment sizes between 2.5 and 4 ha inarea would support the development of allied value adding industry in the adjoining UE

Zone, and is consistent with the goals and actions from the Northern Food Bowl Study.

The area is also relatively free from flooding in a 1:100 year ARI event so as to protect hi

value crops and growing facilities from flood damage.

The productive capacity of hi tech hydroponics eclipses all other modes of horticultureproduction and will be needed lo reach supply thresholds for value adding processing.

Allotment sizes between 2.5 to 4 ha are suitable for both medium and hi-tech hydroponicgrowing. The higher productive capacity of such facilities is more likely to absorb the

overheads of high quality reclaimed water than other less inlensive modes of horticultureproduction. Accordingly we recommend that Council endorse the establishment of agreenhouse cluster precinct north of Middle Beach Road in accordance with Figure 1

above and sets a standard for a minimum allotment size of 2.5 ha with the precinct.


submission please do not hesitate to contact either myself on 08 85682037 or

0488451970 or via email on [email protected]

My Client requests the opportunity to address the Council at the public hearing scheduled

for Monday the 30th of October at 5.30pm.

Yours faithfullv

--7'-'2-Henri MuellerDIRECTOR - REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTIONS


EXPERT REPORT ON THE NORTHERN FOOD BOWLS & PROTECTION AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Prepared by: Trevor LinkeB.Ec, Advanced Dip of Agricultural Management, Dip Ed


SCOPE OF REPORT

I have been asked to provide expert comment on allotment size with respect to thedevelopment of an intensive horticultural precinct.

The location is the northern side of Middle beach Road and this lies within theAdelaide Plains Council.

Figure l: Requested Rezoning lprovided by Regional Planning Directions]

I am aware that the Horticulture Policy Area in the Adelaide Plains Council states theminimum allotment size is 8 ha. This compares with 4 ha Rural Zone in Gawler.

This report will make an introductory comment on the merit of adopting a 4haallotment size to accommodate the development of a high tech horticulture precinct.

I have considerable experience in working with the Virginia Horticultural Industrysince 200. In 2008 my business won a FarmBis Training Award for managementtraining to primarily Vietnamese and Cambodian vegetable growers and I was aninaugural member and director of Hortex Alliance and grower support bodyorganisation.

I was the recipient of a govemment grant to support the development of variousgrower groups and was the facilitator of the Hi Tech grower group which had themajority of hi tech producers as members (excluding Divine Ripe)

My business primarily relates to farm - business planning and strategic developmentand with my considerable experience in this region I believe I am in an excellentposition to make comment on this proposal.


Preliminary-Qo!0CIer'1

A framework for Future Action in relation to the Northern Food Bowl (July

2013) provides a useful assessment guide for the future development ofHorliculture in the area.

Greenhouse clustering should be encouraged where there are industrybenefits for doing so. The locations for greenhouse clustering will be exploredduring a DPA process and should be consistent with the guiding principles(see Action 69). - page 46A greenhouse cluster should allow limited subdivision to 2.5 hectares. Ihis lsseen as a viable unit size for small-to-medium scale greenhouses that areIikety to be attracted to the cluster. Smaller parcels of land may be achievedfor greenhouses through leasing arrangements. - page 48

The adhoc nature of horticultural development within the Northern Food Bowl regionhighlights the difficulties of sustaining horticultural activities / growth with everincreasing urban development i.e. residential complaints about spray drift is just oneexample. There is considerable logic in planning authorities facilitating the growth ofprecincts and this is the path taken by governments in the world's major horticulturalareas e.g, Spain and Holland. To effectively advance the growth of precincts,planning authorities should in my opinion consider allotment sizes within precincts asdifferent from general allotment sizes.

The size of the allotment will vary depending upon the clustering model developed.ln a medium to hi tech cluster it is my suggestion that2.5-4 ha would be theappropriate size.

The following analysis highlights the ever changing nature of horticulture within theVirginia and Northern Adelaide plains and highlights that Hl TECH horticulture willevolve as the major source of food production in time.


The above photograph relates to a development on Penfield Road Virginia SA 2013.In the very back of the photograph one can see very basic and now unattended soilglasshouses which were very low yielding. [Some as low as 3 kilograms per sqmetrel.To the left are older style soil glasshouses which provided yields [under goodmanagementl of around 6 kgs per square metre. To the right of those glasshouses isa low tech - medium hydroponic set up with higher pitched roofs. Theseglasshouses allowed production to move to around 30 kgs per sq metre.As horticulture has evolved, especially with increasing land values many of theleading growers - businesses have moved to hi tech horticulture as shown on theright of screen. These glasshouses can produce up to 60-70 kgs per square metre.

Hieu Minh Ly is one of Virginias more progressive vegetable growers. In 2010 hewas a Nuffield Scholarship winner and his presentation on the "Conversion fromsoilto hydroponic production in protected cropping" provides valuable insightinto the future of horticulture in the regionHieu Minh Ly was a member of the Hi Tech Growers group that I facilitated in 2012-2013 under a NRM Grant.

In 2007 Ly Hydroponics had 2.5 ha of "basic glasshouses" as shown below

In 2008 Ly Hydroponics, similar to the grower on Penfield road the decision wasmade to construct low - medium tech glasshouses to increase production.

Below is an example of a low - medium tech hydroponic glasshouse


Ly Hydroponics

The cost of the above conversion i.e. from soil to hydroponic is approximately

$150,000 for I ha. The investment is significant but there are considerable

advantages that are especially important for the next generations of vegetable

growers.

These advantages are:

1. With climate control there is a longer growing season i.e' from summer

production i.e. 3 months to 9 months.

2. Yields per sq metre are increased from say 6 kilos per sq metre to 30 kilos

per sq melre3. With a crop like truss tomatoes the number of trusses can be increased form

say 10 to 35 and hence greater yields.

4. There is significant resource and cost savings on water - greater efficiencies.

5. lmproved conditions i.e. climate control facilitate the easier sourcing of quality

labour.

The decision to move from low-medium to high tech is a decision than many

emerging business focussed growers are making. After realising the benefits of

moving into hydroponics Ly Hydroponics then move into hi tech.


Ly Hydroponics - Hi Tech

The critical elements of hi tech are:

1. Hi tech development costs are approximately $2,000,000 per ha2. With full climate control i.e. heating in winter (gas) and cooling in summer

(water) yields can be significantly increased i.e. say 65 kilograms per sqmetre [some advanced hi tech glasshouses can get up to 90 kgs per sqmetrel

3. Soil glasshouses and even with low tech there is a constant struggle tomaintain consistent quality of crop. Crop quality is easier to maintain in hitech.

4. Hi tech equipment i.e. sophisticated technologies [computerised] brings alevel of professional crop management.

5. Hi tech operation enhances marketing of produce in that producers are ableto provide large consistent supplies to larger buyers. This is highly desirableand has in the last 5 years led to contract arrangements.

6. Labour is much easier to find as they are working in climate controlledglasshouses and the conditions are significantly better. [Labour is a verycritical issue and one planning authorities should consider carefully. Hi techoperators can provide consistent year round work under good conditions andthus bring about a significant improvement in regional employmentl


Below are estimated financial projections for soil- medium tech - hi tech horticulture

SOIL GLASSHOUSE 1Ha 2.5 ha 4haDevelopment Costs ( exc Land) $100,000 $250,000 $400,000

Yields (6kg sq metre) 60,000 150,000 240,000

Gross Returns ( $2.50 per kilogram) $150,000 $375,000 $600,000

Costs ($1.50 per kilogram) $90,000 $225,000 $360,000

Gross Profit $60,000 $150,000 $240,000

Gross Profit less 25% loss $45,000 $112,500 $180,000Net profit ( including depreciation) $1s,000 $42,000 $70,000

LOW-MEDIUM TEGH HYDRO 1Ha 2.5 ha 4hal'lanralnnrnanf (lnclc / ovn I qnd\ $15n OOO s425-000 s600.000

Yields (30 kg sq metre) 300000 750000 1200000

Gross Retums ( $2.50 per kilogram) $750,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000

Costs ($1 .50 per kilogram) $450,000 $1,125,000 $1,800,000

Gross Profit $300,000 $750,000 $'1,200,000

Gross Profit less 15olo loss $255.000 $637,500 $1,020,000Net profit ( including depreciation) $115,000 $250,000 $540,000

HI TECH HYDRO 1Ha 2.5 4haDevelopment Costs ( exc Land) $2,000,000 $5,000,000 $8,000,000

Yields (65 kg sq metre) 650000 1625000 2600000

Gross Returns ( $3.00 per kilogram) $1,950,000 $4,875,000 $7,800,000

Costs ($1 .80 per kilogram) $1,170,000 $2,925,000 $4,680,000

Gross Profit $780,000 $1,950,000 $3,120,000

Gross Profit less 10% loss $702,000 $1,755,000 $2,808,000Net profit ( including depreciation) $310,000 $950,000 $1,500,000

Assumptions:

1. The above refers to development - operations post land purchase'

2. Net profit calculations include depreciation.3. Financial expenses e.g. loans have been excluded.

4. Losses in soil crops are higher than in hi tech hydroponic where climate

control manages picking times and disease5. Retums in Hi Tech hydroponic are $3.00 per kilo (Zyear average) compared

to $2.50 for soil and medium. This is based on supply contracts being offered

to large scale producers - they are able to provide consistent large quality

volumes.6. Net profit is strongly influenced and in favour of hi tech operations, given that

cost are extrapolated over a much bigger volume of produce.

7, Amortization of costs over larger volumes creates financial efficiencies.

8, HiTech hydroponics requires access to gas supplies so that optimal

temperafure control can be maintained. I am not fully aware if there is access

to gas supplies in this area. lf there wasnt some level of gas storage would be


required so that those properties seeking to go hi tech could have access togas heating.

9. Water (irrigation) is required in all three glasshouse operations. The price ofwater is a changing dynamic and the most important issue is the efficiency ofuse.

10. I refer to Linke 2013 - "A Snapshot - HYDROPONIC HORTICULTURE'

WATER USE EFFICIENCIESAgriculture Sector Litres of water per $100 of oulput

Rice 470,000Cotton 160,000

Beef Cattle

Vegetables & Fruit

Wheat & Grain

Hydroponlc Crops

81,20037,90024,500

600

Dairy Milk 147,000Sugar 123.900

"Hydroponic food production is one of the world's fastest growing agriculturesectors-Yyhy you may ask?

Hydroponic glasshouses are highly efficient food production systems.They can produce around 60-75 kg of food units /m2, compared to 3-5kg/m2 for soil glasshouse systems.

They are highly efficient users of natural resources, especially water.The table above highlights that hydroponic crops use only 600 litres ofwater to produce $100 worth of output, far ahead of the other sectors

1 1. One of the reasons why medium tech and hi tech can keep costs per unitrelatively low is there efficient use of water. In hi tech operations the plants

are constantly monitored and computers initiate plant watering only when it isrequired and only at the required level

12. As the price of water increases the relative cost advantage of hydroponics willonly get better.

Summary:

1. Hl TECH hydroponics produces significantly higher yields when compared toboth soil and low - medium tech.

2. Yield risks are much high in soil i.e. less climate control.3. Consistency of quality is much higher in Hi Tech and there is less wastage.4. Profitably is much higher with Hl TECH hydroponics and manv leadinq

growers see this as the future of horticulture in the reqion.5. 4 ha of Hi Tech hydroponics (excluding land) is a very significant capital

investment i.e. 8 million.6. Both low- medium and hi tech hydroponics offer farm viability al 2.5 - 4 ha

Soil horticulture is often run by smaller family operations. Labour support for theseventures is hard to find and profitably restricts this in any case. lts hard workespecially in summer when temperatures can get very hot. The lack of climatecontrol exposes growers to crop risk and quality losses.


Whilst produce can be high quality the marketability is more and more becoming

niche.lncreased property values, increased council rates and peri urban horticulture issues

e.g. spraying are real limits to the advancement of horticulture in Virginia.

It is my belief that the real issue facing that region is the rate of return of theenterprise in relation to land values.

As the table above shows a 4 ha well run soil operation can retum net $70,000 (net

of financial expenses and taxation). Land value could be say $600,000. Thisprovides a return on land investment of 11.67%

However on the same land the rate of retum on land value would be 250o/o

-As+h€+

ecially in Vjrginia -Ftl€'dh€fn+delaide ,

-

Plains) this retum on land value will see many growers adopting the approach by Ly

Hydroponics - moving to medium or hitech glasshouses'

The real future of horticulture rests wlth the development of precincts ofmedium of hi tech hortlculture combined with infrastructure and resource

support le access to water and gas.

The development of horticulture within the Northem Adelaide Food Bowl is full of

opportunity subject to the provision of required resources.

Whilst 8 ha is a suitable allotment size for a soil glasshouse operation it isn't the

most appropriate size for medium or hitech horticulture. With capital investment(excluding land) being around $8 million for 4 ha this is significant limit amount.

Anything larger and one is moving towards corporate entities such as Divine Ripe.

In my considered opinion 4 ha is the most appropriate size allotment for a hi tech

operation if one is seeking to build a precinct with additional synergies i.e. foodprocessing, transportation etc.

I welcome further enquiry to this report.

Trevor Linke October 2017


From:Sent:To:SubJeci:

Philip Earl [[email protected]]Thursday, 19 October 2017 9:36 AMMegan LewisRE: Northem Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation

Meganln relation to the Northern food bowl Protection area

I believe that the proposed area is too large & will result in small acreage development spread over the whole area,

thus increasing problems for broad acre (General) farming.

I believe a smaller dedicated area would be a better option & allow for reclaimed water to be available forHorticulture purposes.

I wish to be heard at a public meeting.

ReEErd-Phillip Earl.

Frcm : Mega n Lewts l'mailto : 1"1 LewisOapc.sa.gov.aujSenE Monday, 16 October 2017 1l:15 AMTo:'[email protected]'SubJect Notthern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Publlc and Agency Consultation

Dear Philip,

Further to my call with you this morning, please find attached a copy of the Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food

Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment.

All representations on the DPA should be made in writing by Friday 5pm (20 October 2017). You can either reply

direct to this email or submit your response in letter format to the Chief Executive Officer, Adelaide Plains Council,

PO Box18 Mallala SA 5502 or electronically to Council's general email address lqfu1Qqpg.Egqv.au (referencing the

DPA).

Submissions should indicate whether the author wishes to be heard at the public meeting (on 30 October 20t7l.

Kind regards

Megan

Megan Lewis I Planning OfficerDevelopment and Communltyl P: (08) 8527 O2OO I E: [email protected]

PO Box 18, Mallala SA 5502 | www.apc.sa.gov.au

@rffF:l'c€lehtdttng 80 unlgue yeors of history os the Dlstrtct Councll of Mallala -Embraclng our luture prosperity as Adelalde Plains Councll.

This emoil ond any dttachments dre intended solely Jor the named recipient only. The information it contsins may be confidentiol

or commerciolly sensitive, lf you arc not the intended recipient you must not use, reproduce ar distribute any pdrt ofthls emoll or

disclose its contents to ony other pafty. Pledse contact as immediately and then delete the messoge from your computer.


This email has been scanned by the Slmantec Email Security.cloud se,nrice.

For more information please visit http://www.syrranteccloud.com


MrJames Mlller

Chief executive Officer

Via Megan Lewls


Via Email: [email protected]

CONSUTATANON COMMENTS ON THE ADETAIDE PIAINS COUNCIT NORTHERN FOOD

BOWL PROTECTION AREAS DEVETOPMENT PIAN AMENDMENT

HortEx Alliance Incorporated is an alliance created to support horticultural industry

groups to enhance sustainability, profitability and technical development. lt is supported

by membership of growers and applies for Federal and State project funding. HortEx offers

training support and agribusiness advice through private consultation and funding for

projects that supports growers in South Australia and particularly but not limited to

growers on the Northern Adelaide Plains (NAP).

HortEx Alliance has a board consisting of commercial horticultural producers of differing

commodities grown and marketed from the NAP. Whilst some members of the board and

the general membership have businesses sited in the Virginia, Angle Vale and southern

areas of the NAP it also has members in the zone North of the Gawler River or within the

Adelaide Plains Council boundaries. HortEx represents and has members and associates

made up of horticultural producers of all sizes from large corporate companies to small

individual and partnership run business that are all engaged in Primary production.

It is estimated that approximately 3000 businesses are engaged in primary production and

supply services to primary producers in the region and HortEx Alliance supports the

sustainable production and development of these businesses.

HortEx Alliance Incorporated is the main grower association in the region and operates the

Virginia Horticulture Centre for the benefit of members and non- members engaged in

horticulture primarily but not limited to growers from the NAP.

HortEx's Executive officer has reviewed the letter and associated documents of the

Development Plan Amendments and maps and in consultation with the Chair, members of


the board, ordinary members and associates and on behalf of HortEx Alliance lncorporatedwishes to lodge this document based on a plethora of comments from all engaged.

lf and when a public consultative meeting is held regarding this DPA the author will speak

on behalf of the broader horticultural industries and on behalf of HortEx Alliance

Incorporated.

HortEx Alliance Inc. along with AusVeg SA is representing and negotiating on behalf of theindustryto 5A Water with regard to the Northern Adelaide lrrigation Scheme (NAIS)

pricing and availability.

The recent approval of the funding for the NAIS will encourage further development ofland in the APC boundary and some associated areas and it is vitally important that thearea is a protected area for primary

The NAIS has been adjusted from the original size of 20 Giga Litres down to 12 GL. The

scheme will be a staged scheme with uptake determining the speed of future size and

output from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant to the scheme.

The uptake of the reclaimed water will be limited by the availability of land and services

within the APC boundary.

Areas aligned to the Gawler River are prone to regular flooding which has contributed tomajor crop and infrastructure losses over the years with the latest flood occurring inOctober 2016. lt estimated that up to S50 Million of lost production qccurred with a

further SSO willion of property and building damage causing major disruption to outputfrom the region.

HortEx Alliance incorporated has recently engaged with State government Ministerrs and

the Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority through its Independent Member and

Chair Mr lan Baldwin to approach the Federal government to make good its promise tofund urgent flood mitigation work to ensure that any future development is notthreatened by successive flooding causing future crop losses and damage. lt is vitallyimportant that this is funded and we urge the APC to not withdraw from the GRFMA as

has been reported recently.

The proposed changes as outlined in the letter to HortEx Alliance from the APC Chief

Executive dated 25tr August 2017 outlines a summary of the proposed changes which areopen for comment.

The primary objectives of the SA Planning Poliry Library V 5 for primary production zones

are as follows

1. The long term continuation of primary production.

2. 2 Economically productive, efficient and environmentally sustainable primaryproduction.

3. 3 Allotments of a size and configuration that promote the efficient use of land forprimary production.


4 Protection of primary production from encroachment by incompatible land uses and

protection of scenic qualities of rural landscapes.

5 (Conversion note: core policy if a desired character statement exists for the zone)

Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone.

We intend to address the proposed changes in the order set out in the letter described

above.

r Updating the Hazards and Interface between Land Users to align with 5A Planning

Policy Library V 6.-the basic theme here is to manage interface conflict between

primary industry activities- this is a commendable objective but there should also

be provisions to eliminate potential conflict between rural living or town dwellingin-

to the EPA, State Department of Planning and Local government or any other State

government agency with a view to causing interruption to the normal activities ofthe primary producers in the zone. This would include fertiliser use, storage and

spreading compost production, unintended spray drift (which is covered under

Primary producer Quality assurance programs and Chemical trespass laws) or any

noise dust or other issues that local non primary production residents wish toobject to.

Inserting updated overlay maps- constraints relating to siting of primary production

in flood zones of the Gawler and Light Rivers is advisable but should be somewhat

alleviated by the flood mitigation measures proposed through the application tothe Federal and State governments for funding and to the GRFMA. Existing

producers should not be restricted from continuing on with their existing primary

production enterprises in the flood zone if they wish to do so and take the risk.

Amending the Non - Complying Tables with in the zones - greater controls on

development in High Flood Risk Areas and updating policies relating to fencing

within the flood plain- these are also commendable but should not impinge on

existing primary producers occupying the areas at present and these areas should

be greatly mitigated when the flood mitigation work is undertaken as indicted

recently by the Federal and State governments and the GRFMA.

Updating reference to flood policy across all General Section policies in relation tothe Light River- this is warranted but should not impact on existing producers in

any way.

Replacing exiting Primary producer Zone Policies to-align with 5A Planning Policy Library V6 Policies

-reference expansion of Horticulture Policy Area 3.

It should be noted that-in the Planning Policy v6 states the following in relation to

PRIMARY Production zones:

A dwelling should only be developed if: (a)there is a demonstrated connection

with farming or other primary production (b) the location of the dwelling will not

inhibit the continuation of farming, other primary production or other

development that is in keeping with the provisions of the zone (c) it is located more

than 500 metres from an existing intensive animal keeping operation unless used in

4.


association with that activity (d) it does not result in more than one dwelling per

allotment.This infers that a dwelling on any size allotment is not a NON COMPLYING

development. We point this out as it has been widely publicly stated that thecurrent Minister of Planning Mr Rau will not countenance or approve the addition

of dwellings on small horticultural blocks of land and has been accredited withreferring to such dwelling developments as "rural living by stealth". This is contraryto the Policy Planning V 5 policies for Primary Production Zones (which does

include horticulture zones).

Many small horticulture producers on 2.5 - 4 Hectares with 33- 50 plus production

greenhouses or larger horticulture production units such as field crops need to live

on site to monitor thelr crops, for security reasons as well as convenience and

reduction of travel and fuel costs thus reducing the carbon footprint. Horticulture isa seven day seven night a week operation that requires constant monitoring even iftechnology is installed to produce alarms when growing parameters fall outside thealarm settings.

Mr Rau may be honourable in his intention but this stand is contrary to thePlanning Policy Version 6 and is counter- productive in the instance of the intended

establishment of the NAls.

Many farmers who do not live on their production properties have had plant and

equipment stolen from sheds and greenhouses including the Chair of AusVeg SA

who recently had a tractor stolen from his unattended property even though therewere alarm systems in place. The writer of this document has also had over

$27,000 worth of workshop tools and equipment stolen from his workshop on thefarm when unattended. The workshop was locked, alarmed and had regular

security guard visitations during the night. These occurrences cause major

disruption to primary production activities and can severely inhibit cash flow and

lead to business failure.

HortEx Alliance Incorporated strongly urges the APC to approach the Ministerthrough means other and prior to the lodgement of the DPA to the Minister tosupport the case for dwelling establishment on horticultural production units. This

will also limit growers from staying in temporary accommodation overnight onproperties during critical growing phases of the phenology of the crops.

Update Desired Character Statement to specifically reference the future availability

of recycled water and potential for intensive horticulture and allied industries.-

rerycled water should be amended to read " Class A Reclaimed Water" and

horticulture and allied industries should be explained in detail ie. Perennial

cropping such as almond growing , olive growing , vine growing and other treecrops and perennial crops and lowtech and intensive high tech greenhouse

vegetable and fruit production, field crop vegetable production, mushroom farmsand other intensive horticulture, nurseries and associated service providers and

allied and essential services such as packing sheds and value adding facilities such

as wineries should be allowed developments " ON FARM" as they are an integralpart of a primary production.


Insert new poliry which envisages on site energy generation where ancillary to an

existing use- This is allowable in all current horticulture regions such as the

RIVERLAND. The writer has a 7 KW system on a tractor shed which runs power to a

small production winery, sheds and a small on site dwelling on 3'84 Hectares (10

Acres) of vineyard development. To assist primary producers to reduce costs this

should be encouraged and is supported by HortEx Alliance Inc.

Amend land division policies- The current minimum land divisions that are

complying in the Primary Production zone of the APC are considered to only be

suitable to large field crop, perennial crop and corporate greenhouse producers.

Smaller allotments of 2.5- 4 Hectares will allow small to medium enterprises to be

established in the greenhouse production commodity section of the industry. On

50 M a packing shed, tractor shed and workshop and a small to medium sized

dwelling if allowed. This type of development although low tech in its nature will

support a greater workforce than large corporate greenhouses with

computerisation, mechanisation and high capital cost. Whilst these may be more

amenable to the planning and government agencies involved the small to medium

enterprises will have the potential for higher self- employment and employee

levels and will have a greater capacity to reach the target set by the government

funding bodies that have enabled the NAls to come fruition' To reach the S5o0

Million target and 3700 jobs small to medium size production units would have a

greater capacity to employ than large Hi tech production units that tend to rely on

more technology rather than employing staff.

r lnsert new " Complying" development provisions which facilitate horticulture(including intensive production in an enclosed environment) across the zone-

protected cropping is the way of the future of horticulture and well- built

structures Insertion of new 'Complyingl development provisions which facilitate

horticulture (including intensive production in an enclosed environment) across the

zone subject to conditions and link these to updated setback provisions contained

in the zone

Explonotory Statement

o amend various sections of the Non-ComplyingTable, including land division and

dwellingo update the Public Notification table to facilitate horticulture as a Category 1 or 2

development.- HortEx Alliance Incorporated supports this concept in principle as

long as the set backs are not too intrusive on the productive capacity ofthe land

being used for horticulture production. To facilitate the acceptance of horticulture

as a Catl or 2 is desirable.

r Insertion of an urban employment zone and rezoning of land to the west of Two

Wells and south east of Dublin for this purpose would allow the development ofallied industries and processing businesses that would enhance the horticulture

value chain by allowing businesses involved in value adding and processing to be


developed.-HortEx Alliance lnc. Supports this concept as long as it does not impact

on primary Producer status of the developments.

Updating land division policy content Updating relevant zone, policy area and

development plan constraints maps and map reference tables to reflect the changein structure of poliry within the Development Plan. In showing the new UrbanEmployment Zone on Zone Map Mal/8, the opportunity has also been taken tocorrect an error on this Map. The reference to the Coastal Zone is to be replacedwith reference to the Coastal Conservation Zone as there are no associated policies

for the Coastal Zone contained within Council's Development Plan. This will alsobring this Map into alignment with the adjoining Zone Maps (to the north and south)which reference the Coastal Conservation Zone.-No real comment except to ensurethat any existing PRIMARY PRODUCERS that may fall into the zone should not bedisadvantaged or forced to relocate off land that is generally productive for most ofthe time and only experiences flood at 1in 10 or up to 1 in 100 year cycles. The costsassociated with relocating and reestablishment are not generally met by anycompensation.

Update maximum outbuilding floor space restrictions across the Rural Living andAnimal Husbandry from $Yo of the total area of the allotment to 25% of the totalaf f otment area.- This should also apply to the HorticultureZoningprovisions as manyhorticulture producers have ON FARM - packing sheds, machinery sheds, tractorsheds etc. . lt is important to ensure that growers NEVER lose the Primary Productionstatus for all operations in the value chain. By allowing growers to have their valueadding packing sheds on site their business is not fragmented and we do not run therisk of creating a secondary industry zone that is deemed to be out of Primarylndustry provisions under Australian Taxation Law. Some proponents have beenreferring to packing sheds, mushroom farms, cool- room facilities etc. as FACTORIES.

This characterisation should be totally discouraged at levels of planning and

administration of the land divisions for horticulture.

Updating relevant zone, policy area and development plan constraints maps andmap reference tables to reflect the change in structure of poliry within theDevelopment Plan. In showing the new Urban Employment Zone on Zone MapMal/8, the opportunity has also been taken to correct an error on this Map. Thereference to the Coastal Zone is to be replaced with reference to the CoastalConservation Zone as there are no associated policies fortheCoastal Zone contained within Council's Development Plan. This will also bring thisMap into alignment with the adjoining Zone Maps (to the north and south) whichreference the Coastal Conservation Zone.-HortEx Alliance lnc. whilst beingpredominantly an association for horticultural producers also has an environmentalfocus through our promotion of " clean and green " produce from the NAP. Manyfarms operate under Environmental Management Systems as part of their industrysector requirements for enhancing market access along with HACCP based plans

covering ON FARM food production and handling. We therefore support the changeto the zone as long as no exiting producer of horticultural products is not negatively


impacted upon in operation of their farm that abuts or falls within the Conservation

zoning.. Range of minor corrections, updates and conseguential changes.-As long as these

have no negative effects on growers in the Adelaide Plains Council area we would

support positive change.

To finalise the HortEx Alliance submission we commend the Adelaide Plains Council for its

foresight and support for the primary producers of the Northern Adelaide Plains.

For and on Behalf of the Chair and Board of HortEx Alliance Incorporated.

Howard Hollow

Executive Officer- General Ma:rager R&D

HortEx Alliance Inc.

PO Box 1644

Virginia SA 5120

Mob: 0438 070464

Email: [email protected] or


'19th October 2017


Dear James,

RegionaI Ptanning

Directionspta ...1 s'1lrr .dr

P0 Box 67, Springton SA 5235

p 08 8568 2037 m. 04Bg 45T 970

he r'@ egiona'pla- ingdireclions.com a.

'r'r,vw regio ra pla"ningd recl ons con.a-

ABN 80 152 935 852

SUBMISSION ON TH NORTHERN D BOWL P TION

DEVELQPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (DPA)

I write on behalf of Benjamin Piller of Dublin Recycling P/L (my Client) in relation to the

above DPA prepared by the Adelaide Plains Council. My Clients own land at 256 Carslake

Road, Dublin (Section 321 CT 6135/208) and are in the process of seeking development

authorization for a waste transfer station and recycling depot involving demolition

materials and mulch on the site previously quarried by the Council.

Our comments relate specifically to the proposed Urban Employment Zone on Carslake

Road Dublin and request Council consider extending the zone to include my Client's land

located opposite the livestock markets site.

Background

The property is within the Primary Production Zone along the sealed road portion of

Carslake Road. My Clients proposal for a waste transfer station and recycling depot is a

noncomplying form of development within the zone. We understand that development

authorization is in the final stages of the process and approval is anticipated in the near

future.

As the proposed land use only occupies parts of the large 105 ha property my Client

anticioates other like land uses will want to collocate on the subject land including value

adding and manufacturing of recycled material, plus a compost operator seeking to

capitalize on the ready supply of feedstock such as green mulch and manure from

intensive animal keeping operations in the area.

However under the current Primary Production Zone related activities wanting to collocate

on the subject land could be subject to noncomplying provisions and a more appropriate

form of zoning would be desirable.

Urban Employment Zone - Carslake Road

We note that Council proposes to introduce an Urban Employment (UE) Zone extending

for 4.3 km along the northern side of Carslake Road. Subject to minor adjustments to zone

policy in my opinion the UE Zone would be better suited to facilitate the kinds of future


development likely to take place on my Client'sexpectations for development authorization soon toshows the UE Zone extended to my Client's land.

land and wouldbe issued for the

be consistent withsite. Figure 1 below

Figure I Extension to Urban Employment Zone

The configuration shown above is limited to including my Client's property but does notpreclude any other amendments Council determines appropriate.

Several minor adjustments are requested within ihe UE Zone policy content in order tofacilitate orderly and economic development of my Client's land and thereby enablingolher like uses to establish on what is a relatively large parcel of land. Requested changesin policy are marked in yellow as follows:

DESIRED CHARACTER

lnsert after the third paragraph:

Parts of the zone along Carslake Road provide valuable limestone for road buildingand this will continue with opportunilies for establishing post closure operationsincluding recycling of demolition material, mulching, and composting on rubble pitrehabilitalion sites.


lnsert in Principle 1 under land use:

Land Use


1 The following forms of development, or combination thereof, are envisaged in

lhe zone:

. waste transfer station and recycling depot in the Carslake Road part of the

zone

PROGEDURAL MATTERS

Non-complying Development

Development (including building work, a change in the use of land, or division of an

allotment) involving any of the following is non-complying:

ln sert under exceptions

Special industry

Waste or recycling depot

Gonclusion and Recommendations

Except where it is an organic waste processing

facility located on Section 32'l Carslake Road

Except on Section 321 Carslake Road

My Clients own a large property previously used as a Council quarry located on the

southern side of Carslake Road and will shortly commence a significant recycling

operation involving demolition material, and mulching of green waste. The proposal was

treated as a noncomplying development in the Primary Production Zone. Due to the large

size of the property it is expected that other like uses will be seeking to collocate on the

same site. The Urban Employment Zone would provide a more appropriate planning policy

setting with minor adjustments to facilitate the further development of my Clients land.

We therefore respectfully request that the Council extend the Urban Employment Zone to

include Section 321 Carslake Road and undertake minor modifications to the Desire

Character statement, principle 1, and the noncomplying provisions to enable like uses and

facilitate orderly and economic development of the property.


submission please do not hesitate to contact either myself on 08 85682037 or

0488451970 or via email on [email protected]

My Glient requests the opportunity to address the Council at the public hearing scheduled

for Monday the 30th of October at 5.30pm.

Yours faithfully

--V --12-'----Henri MuellerDIRECTOR - REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTIONS


\sa\,t\\}\J

\A[

ex)i

N

N\

'$. v

t lr Rt \g\$itr ,

$ltt \\N\\\\\iBtrtttsi*si*

t$ll ti\\t\i$s

$\lit :H$\N

\r ut [r \*\l.

\\\t\lrir\l

\l\$$}iiN

\

\

'\i"

\

$\

r t $'\ Se

\N't$ $.i\ t\&lq

t\v

i i\ i$\ qt sl\ N \ \$r N [s.$N\i

$ *Rx$ orrl.

$ $ $:N $,\i\ \ \\ts \ sU- \r S\ f'* ssN*

s $tR\

\F.

{N(\\N\\

.\\\G

\

\

\.\a-

aRN\

s-uE

.\\

rQ*NStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 261 of 431 6 November 2017


RECEIVED

1 g ocT 2017


From:Sent:IO:Subject:

Kerry And Robert [[email protected]]Thursday, 19 October2017 10:35 PMlnfoDPA

To the Chief Executive Officer Adelaide Plains Council,

We are writing to council to put forward our support for proposed changes to Adelaide plains Councils development

plan in particular the changes to the policies for the Primary Production zone to facilitate further horticulture

development. We think that allowing the minimum 20 acres subdivision to be brought down to smaller blocks for

horticulture purposes will only enhance the areas link to the northern food bowl and give people the opportunity to

purchase smaller blocks, move into the area and start new businesses, We will not be seeking to speak at a public

Regards Robert and Kerry Bolland

ttris .mait has been scanned by the symantec Email security.cloud service.

For more information please visit htto://www.svmanteccloud.com


86 hall Road

Redbanks

5502

SA

RE: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment.

I have property in the current area considered for re-zoning.

My concerns are:

o The area suggested is a considerable size, this is likely to mean horticulture will be scattered

throughout the region.

r This I believe will cause extra pressures particularly for the arable farmers having to

negotiate the particular sensitivity ofthe horticulture plants;

r although they are responsible farmers there is always the risk even if only minimal of

chemicals drifting . Having a greenhouse next to the property has meant numerous delays in

spraying to ensure of the neighbours crops. lf surrounded by horticulture I would be

absolutely impossible to arable farm with confidence.

. Water availability- Properties scattered will mean causing larger areas of infrastructure

required to meet the needs of the horticulture farmers as the area isn't rich in this

commodity and even mains water pressure is poor in areas

r The infrastructure/ roads isn't adequate in many areas so it will cause unnecessary

expenditure to the council/ ratepayers having to regrade roads more often. I am aware of a

motor vehicle accident outside a property that has trucks entering / exiting frequently the

road hadn't been maintained and there was a large hole in the road causing a vehicle to be

thrown off course, the driver was quite seriously injured . Increase in heavy transport in

scattered areas will mean larger areas to be maintained and subsequently more expenditure

for ratepayers.. The horticultural property on Oliver Road is not well maintained only a small percentage of

the property is used and the rest has just been left with weeds which increases the need to

spray on the arable properties around it as of course weeds spread.

r I believe it would be more productive to reduce the area to be re-zoned and build from the

area horticulture is mainly focused now it is also closer to the main road routes it makes

more sense. lt would allow road maintenance to be more specific reducing costs and

minimise disruption to other types of farming.

Regards

Sue Reid 0419840539


JENSE N+ PlanningLandscape ArchitectureUrban Design

Social PlanningPLUS(r/ 25 r Girtlt O!rIlr)llrlRr.,.r(l

Fre,Lrvr li. 5Ofr3 Si)trth n lr!t r ;ll ;l

rlil ii l3N -:.11

ABl.l !b be7 Lrrf 2!15

www jensenplus.com.au

P08r7 DPA submision eoOcttT

eoth October zorT

Chief Executive OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPo Box tBMallala SA 55oe

By email: inf o.c.ri:c sa.gov att

Dear Mr Miller,

Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public Consultation

This letter is a submission for the Draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendmentproposed by the Adelaide Plains Council. We represent and prepare this submission for Greenwheat Freekehpty Ltd who own a property at 495 Carslake Road, Dublin and operate a Freekeh manufacturing and dispatch

facility from this site.

We thank and congratulate the Adelaide Plains Council in engaging Greenwheat Freekeh and other landowners

as part of the DPA investigations. We have reviewed the DPA and are generally supportive of the direction and

overall vision to assist the State Government's strategic and economic priorities of major primary production,

horticulture growth and primary food production on the Northern Adelaide Plains.

The rezoning of Carslake Road, Dublin, to an Urban Employment Zone, will facilitate the accommodation ofallied food industries associated with food processing, packing and manufacturing, and further supports theexisting use of Greenwheat Freekeh's site, and more importantly, potential future expansion and diversification

of products manufactured and prepared for export from this location.

we support the application of the urban Employment Zone to this location because it:

_ provides the flexibility required for the accommodation of a range of potential I land uses to support

Greenwheat Freekeh's expansion, including other allied uses that could benefit from clustering into this

location_ recognises the importance of maintaining a high level of amenity for this precinct, reflective of the high-

quality food production brand envisaged for this location (that also needs to be supported by infrastructureinvestment)

_ provides for the further subdivision of land to allow for clustering of additional facilities in closer proximity

(and better utilisation of land where the existing land parcels sizes are not required for the intended uses).

Given the support, we do not feel the need to speak in support of this submission at the public hearing'


We look forward to Council's response to this submission and can be contacted on 8338 55tt should you haveany questions regarding this matter.

Kind Regards,

David BaroncAssociateBURP (Hons) MPIA


Gregor Farm,

206 Gregor Road,

Reeves Plains 5502

LslLolLT

RE: Northern Food Bowl Protectlon Areas Development Plan Amendment.

Our family have been broad acre farming in Reeves Plains for approximately 90 years and

the paddocks are situated between Oliver and Verner Roads.

I would like to make the following comments;

r Rezoning a large area for horticulture will lead to uncertainty and under investment

bythe broad acre landholders.

r Allowing horticulture to establish in an adhoc manner in the general farming zone is

already causing land use conflict and hence productivity losses. Broad acre spraying

and burning is now a very challenging activity for all the neighbours of these shade

houses.

o The shade house on Oliver Road has resulted in the surrounding land on that title

not being used for any agricultural production and harbouring proclaimed pest

plants and animals.

r The horticulture zone should be expanded out from the current area where there is

the appropriate infrastructure and suitable allotment sizes.

Regards,

Neil Gregor.


From:Sent:To:Gc:Subject:

Attachments:

James Miller

Chief Executive Officer


Steve Kennedy [[email protected]]Friday, 20 October 2017 2:45 [email protected] LewisRE.NORTHERN FOOD BOWL PROTECTION AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLANAMENDMENT (DPA)Limerock Holdings Submission to APC.pdf

PO Box 18,

Mallala, SA 5502

Dear Sir,

Please find attached a submission for the NORTHERN FOOD BOWL PROTECTION AREAS DEVELOPMENT

PLANAMENDMENT(DPA).

I have written authority to also act on Stephen Jones behalf for anyhing to do with Limerock Holdings, and his

property on Limerock Roa4 Dublh.

Please let me know if you need a copy of this?

I look forward to your favourable consideration of our zubmission, and am happy for anyone to contact me regarding

any aspect ofit.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Kennedy

Former Mayor and Councillor of the DC Mallala

lntemational Sales manager

Donald Equipment Australia Pty Ltd

Used and Unused Mlntng and Construction Equipment

Mobile 0418E259E1

Email stevekennedvT5@,smail.com

http : //historicketchfalie. ore. au/

httns ://www.rsays.com.au/


Board Member Historic Ketch t'Faliet'lnc.

RSAYS "Cruising Committee" Chair and Publicity Officer

RSAYS "Squadron Quarterlyr Magazine Team Member

RSAYS'r$esquicentenaryrt Sub-Committee Member

DISCLAIMER: Wlthout PreJudice. The Infrrmaton contained in thig +mall ls lntended tor th€ named recipien(s) only. lt may contain privileged andoonfidental Infurmaton and lf you are not the Intended redplon(s), you must not copy, dlstlbute or take any acton In rellance on lt Please notitythe ssnder immedlately by e-mail if pu have reoslved thls emall by mbbk€ lhen deleto. The oender doos not accept llablllty for any enorE oromlsslons In the contents of this msssago, wtrich arise as a result of e-mall trangmi8sion. lf rred'flcation ia naquired request a hardopy version.

This einail has been scanned by the Syrnantec Email Security.cloud service.For more information please visit http://www.syrnanteccloud.com


Steve KennedyLimerock Quarries P/L

20th October 20,|7

James MillerChief Executive OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box 18,Ir r^llala QA EEA')

Dear James,

AMENDMENT (DPA)

My purpose in writing is to request that council extend the proposed Urban

Employment Tone at carslake Road to include our quarry sites at lot 6 (CT:

54891285) and lot 7 (cT: 5489/191) Limerock Road, owned and operated by myself

in partnership with steve Jones under the business name Limerock Quarry P/L.

The two allotments in question are in excess of 60 ha in area and each has a 7 metre

wide free and unrestricted right of way to Carslake Road facilitating potential one way

in and out traffic movements as shown by the arrows in Figure 1 below'

Figure 1 Urban Employment Zone and our land


We believe that the sealed road portion of Carslake Road is the best location for theUrban Employmenl Zone and that this should be extended to both sides of the roaoincluding our land, which has access to both Carslake Road and Limerock Road tothe south.

Once our sites have been quarried it would be desirable to utlise the excavatedareas as a base for industry and we would like the opportunity to further develop theland for this purpose. In particular an abattoir located on the two allotments combinedwith one or more of the adjoining allotments fronting Carslake Road would be theideal form of future development on our land. The quarried areas and clay found inthe underlying layer would be conducive to constructing ponds for treating effluentfrom an abattoir.

It is noted that special industry is a noncomplying form of development within theproposed Urban Employment Zone and we are concerned that an abattoir wouldcome under the category of special industry due to the potential for liquid effluent inopen ponds and would subsequently be regarded as a non-complying form ofdevelopment. Noncomplying status could be problematic and in the event that such aproposal is not treated as such it may be open to legal challenge from adjoiningproperty owners.

Recommendations

In short we request that along with extending the Urban Employment Zone to includeour two properties shown as hatched in Figure 1 below we request that amultispecies abattoir be listed as an exclusion from noncomplying status next toSpecial Industry in the procedural section ofthe zone.

We request the opportunity to address the Council at the public hearing scheduledfor Monday the 30th of October at 5.30pm.

Yours faithfullv


Trevor KittelPO BOX 118

ANGLE VATI SA 5117

LOT 79 ROBERTS ROAD

LEWTSTON SA 5s01

PH 0417836631

2os october 2017

Dear Minister

allotments specifically here along the Gawler river horticulture zone at lewiston.

I have had many people approach me for the opportunity to purchase smaller allotments around 5

acres seems to be a popular request simply because it will be more affordable to them in thenorthern food bowl protection area. These people will be the back bone of our area.

I also think it is going to add the possibility of lots more employment within the area and will also

add to the sustainability of our area and council now and in the future in this area that is rapidly

growing.

Yes I do support the 2.5 hectare/5acre allotments within our horticultural zone with great

excitement especially along the Gawler River where horticultural land is at its best.

Please advise me of any outcome or further developments in this matter.

Regards

Trevor Kittel


Melanie KittelPO BOX 118ANGLE VALE 5A 5117LOT 79 ROBERTS ROAD

LEWISTON SA 5501

[email protected]

2oth october 2017

Dear Minister

I am very exeited te hear the hertieultgrc bbcks could bc subdivided into 5'.'o.r ? s ho.tere

allotments specifically here along the Gawler river horticulture zone at Lewiston.

I have had many people approach me for the opportunity to purchase smaller allotments around 5

acres seems to be a popular request simply because it will be more affordable to them in thenorthern food bowl protection area. These people will be the back bone of our area.


add to the sustainability ofour area and council now and in the future in this area that is rapidlygrowing.

Yes I do support the 2.5 hectare/Sacre allotments within our horticultural zone with great



Regards

l,,rttttftTMelanie Kittel


Symon KittelPo B$* 118ANqIE VALE SA s117Lo#79 RoBERTS ROAD

LEWISTON SA 5501


RECEIVED

z 0 ()cT 2017 2ou october 2017

PH0419032737,J [email protected]

Dear Minister

allotments specifically here along the Gawler river horticuhure zone at Lewiston.

I have had many people approach me fior the opportunity to purchase smaller allotments around 5

acres seems to be a popular request simply because it will be more affordable to them in the

northern food bowl protection area. These people will be the back bone ofour area.


add to the sustainability of our area and council now and in the future in this area that is rapidlygrowing.

Yes I do support the 2.5 hectare/Sacre allotments within our horticultural zone with great



^"t'o'_y*n -/rm/Symon Kittel



Dear MeganIn reply to yourabout speaking at1 InfrastnuctureWatenSewagePower and 3 phaseSeaI Roads

Robert Benyman [robertscrashl @hotmail.com]Wednesday, 25 October 2017 2:27 PMMegan LewisRE: Robert Berryman about DPA

emai1,the meettng on the 30 Oct (referencing DPA)

224-7 work hoursNoise reduction, trees and landscaping3SubdivislonRegards Robent Berryman

From: Megan Lewis [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, 23 October 2OI7 11:41 API

To: 'Robert Benryman'Subject: RE: Robert Benryman about DPA

Dear Flr Bernyman,

Thank you for your email confinmlng that you wish to speak at the pubIlc meetlng on theFood Bowl DPA on Monday 39 October.

In order to meet the requirements for our consultation procedures, those speaking at thepubllc meetlng must base their verbal comments on a written subnission made to Councll as

set out under the Develooment Act 1993.

I am required to summaFise all the written submissions and clrculate these to CouncilMembers prior to the meetlng. I also need this information to set the agenda runningorder in advance 1.e. so representors dlscussing slmllar topics are grouped together.

Can you therefore please brtefly outline your proposed submission to Councll on the DPA byreply to this emall. Thls can consist of a couple of dot points saying whether you are insupport or not o'F a particular part of the DPA and your reasons why. If I could have thisinformatlon by Wednesday (25th) at the latest, it would be much appreclated.

Please 1et me know if you have any quenles regardlng the above. I hope to send outguldellnes for those speaking at the public meeting later 1n the week.

Kind regards

Megan

Megan Lewis I elanning officerDevelopment and Communltyl e:SA 5502 I www. apc. sa. qov. au

Celebrating 8a unlque years of'Future prospenity as Adelaide

(OB) 8527 A2OO I E: [email protected] PO Box L8, Mallala

hlstony as the District Council of Mallala - Embraclng ourPlalns Council.

IStrategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 275 of 431 6 November 2017

This email and any attachments are intended solely for the named recipient only. Thelnformation lt contains may be confidential or commercially sensitive. If you are not thelntended reciplent you must not use, reproduce or distrlbute any part of this enail ordisclose its contents to any other party. Please contact us lmmediately and then deletethe message from your computer.

-----Original Message-----From: Robert Berryman [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 20 October 2At7 2.21 PM

To: InfoSubJect: Robert Berryrnan about DPA

Dear Slr ./ Madan,I wish to speak at the DPA meeting on the 30th Oct I llve at 415 Canslake Road and theReference no. 'from the letter received is C0N16/46Regands Robent Berryman

Thls ernail has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.For more lnfonmatlon pLease vlsit http:l/www.svmanteccloud.com

This email has been scanned by the symantec Email Security.cloud senvlce.For more lnformatlon please vlslt http://www.svmanteccloud.com



lmportance:

Brett Sharman [[email protected]]Friday, 20 October 2017 2:10 PMlnfosubmission about Northern Food Bowl Protection Area Development Plan (DPA) -

Carslake Rd lntersection

High

Attn: Chief Executive Officer,

Re; submission about Northern Food Bowl Protection Area Development Plan (DPA)

I have sreat concern over the location of the Urban Employment Zone at its proposed location on Carslake Road'

The intersection of Carslake & Frost Roads, which borders the proposed location/zoning, is an extremely dangerous

intersection,This intersection is made dangerous due to it being on a rise, and makes seeing traffic from all directions impossible

until you are at the intersection.(the issue is compounded by the presence of a small 5A Water building at the

intersection.)

Currently, the majority of the tratfic thru this intersection would be travelling along Frost Rd.

However, with the development proceeding, it would not be unexpected that the Traffic on Carslake Rd thru the

intersection would also increase.

I have driven thru this intersection many times, and already had many close calls with traffic travelling on Carslake

Rd failing to property give way. lf traffic increased on Carslake Rd, there is no doubt that serious accidents would

occur at that intersection.

To fix the issue I believe you would have to level out the intersection, and remove the SA Water building from the

intersection.However, I imagine that the cost of these 2 activities would be cost prohibitive.

I don,t believe this issue would be raised by many others, as unless you have been to the intersection, you don't

realise how dangerous it is, and even more dangerous it would be with more traffic using it.

regards,

Brett Sharman

SHARMANS

MD & LAShormon Pty Ltd

p - 08 85270400p - 08 852700A2 @irea)f - 08 8s270099e - [email protected],auw - www.shormons,com.ou

't{.d.,.'k!t.'ttt.'.,r{c:N.*,r'}'t.!i'*{.'tt|.**'r**{.t{.**'t.,l,t.{.*,t('.'r,.'t.{.*:l.tt.'t.{.*l*||t*:..'N,|.:|('f|i|l'l.,l(ar.'.*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. lt may also be legally privileged.

lf you are not the addressee: you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it.

lf you have received this message in error, please delete it and all other copies from your

system and notiry the sender immediately by return e-mail.


E-mail communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free,The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a

result.

*rl. *'*'l',1.* {r *,t r**:i'1.{.*,t 't 'ti

{.tN. rt 'N't*,t*'N***,r*{r**{.*'t{.*'t*rr*rr:t't {.*:t 't{.d' ** **'N' ** *'tr *rtt't

This ernail has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.For more infomration please visit htfp://www.srmranteccloud.com


From:Sent:To:Gc:Subject:

Griffiths, Steven [[email protected]]Friday, 20 October 2017 4:03 PMMegan Lewis; James MillerGoyder EOFW: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation -

25.08.17

Megan,

Thank you for the email of 25th August and the opportunity to comment on the Northern Food Bowl Protection

Areas DPA.

Please accept my apologies for not replying until this, the last day, of submissions.

In recent weeks been contacted by some in the Adelaide Plains area who have been concerned by what they see as

a DPA that has been rushed at the direction of Minister Rau, and others who are concerned that with the issues

surrounding flood risk from the Light River and Gawler River, and the review of the membership of APC with the

Gawler River Flood Management Authority - but I have to believe that these matters will be resolved and the issue

to solely be considered is the DPA and indeed I note that with this 2 month consultation period time for people to

discuss it has been available.

Thus, on the DPA I confirm my support. I do so in not being aware of the detail of the complete document, but in

support of the opportunities I am advised it will provide to the Adelaide Plains area with the Northern Adelaide

lrrigation Scheme development - as long as the cost of water can be controlled so as to be attractive to growers.

I do wish that I had been able to attend community discussions about the DPA to be better informed.

I do not require the opportunity to be heard at a Public Meeting, but in noting that if a meeting is requested it is

intended to happen on Monday 30th October, I confirm that I am locked another public meeting that evening and

cannot be at Mallala.

Regards,

Steven GriffithsMember for Goyder

Email: [email protected]: www-stevenqriffiths.com.au

Telephone: Electorate Office - 8832 2455

From: Goyder EO

Sent Friday, 25 August 2077 72:.t8 PM

To: Griffiths, Steven <[email protected]>


Ccl Fraser Ellis <fraser.ellis@sa. >

Subject FW: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25.08.17

From: Megan Lewis [mailto:[email protected] Friday, 25 August 2017 12:13 PM

To:GoyderEO<@>Subjec* Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA - Public and Agency Consultation - 25.O8.t7

Dear Steve Griffiths MP,

Please find attached the Adelaide Plains Council Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan

Amendment, which has been released for public and agency consultation from 25 August to 2O October 2017.

Kind regards

Megan Lewis I Plannlng OfflcerDevelopment and Communityl P: (08) 8527 O2OO I E: [email protected] Box 1& Mallala SA 5502 | www.apc.sa.sov.au

AdelaidePtainsCouncil

C.elehrating 8O unlque yean of hlstory os the Dlstrld C.ouncll ol Mallala -Emhroclng our future prcsper@ ds Adelalde Plalns Councll.

This emoil dnd dny dttdchments orc intended solely for the named recipient only. The lnformation It contalns moy be confidentidlor commerclolly sensltlve. lf you orc not the lntended reclpient you must not use, reproduce or distribute ony port of this emoll ordisclose its contents to ony other pofty. Please contdct us immedtdtely ond then delete the messoge from your computer,

The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged. lf you are not the intended recipient,access to it is unauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distsibution or action taken or omitted to be laken in relianceon it is prohibited and may be unlawful.

This smail has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud senrice.For more information please visit http://www.syrnanteccloud.com


Doc lD:

20 October 2017

Mr. James MillerChief Executive OfficerAdelaide Plains CouncilPO Box 18

REGIONALCOUNCIL

Lr cnr

Per e-mail: info@aoc. sa.qov.au

Attention: Ms. Megan Lewis,

Dear James,

Adelaide plains Gouncil - Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment(DPA) - Agency Consultation

Thank you for forwarding a copy of the abovementioned DPA and providing Light Regional Council with

an opportunity to review it and provide comments'

I have reviewed the DPA on behalf of council and offer the following comments:

Flood Hazard Risk Areas

For the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, it is suggested that Adelaide Plains Council might consider the use

of 'General' as a descriptor rather than 'Low'.

Light Regional Council also considered the use of 'Low' as a descriptor when undertaking its similar,Giwler Rivers Flood Prone Areas' DPA, which was concluded in August 2015. In the end, Council

chose to use 'General' in preference to 'Low' as it considered that 'LoW might imply lhat the risk is

somehow lessened, and secondly the use of 'General' provided consistency with the approach used for

identifying bushfire risk areas.

Mappino References

It was noted that the mapping examples still refer to 'Mallala Council' and this DPA may provide an

opportunity to update these.

Horticulture Policv Area 3

The significant expansion of the Horticulture Policy Area 3, north of Lewiston adjacent to the western

boundiry of the Light Regional Council area is noted. lt is also noted that this will see cunent minimum

allotmeni sizes reJuced fiom 40 hectares to I hectares for this area. This abuts an area on the western

side of the Light Regional Council area which has a minimum allotment size of 33 hectares.

fn the context of the Environment and Food Production Areas introduced under the Planning'

Development and Infrastructure Act, 2016, Light Regional Council recommends that the qualfiers under

proposed pDC 18 of the Primary Production Zone are strengthened further, to ensure that a productive,

effiiient and sustainable primary production activity is approved and in place prior to land division for

allotments of 8 hectares being ionsidered for this expanded area. This would mitigate the future risks

of such areas otherwise becoming similar to Rural Living Areas.

Principal Office93 Main Street. Kapunda, SA 5J7JFar:(08) 8566 3262

Postal Address:PO Bor 72, Kapunda, South Australia 5373

Telephone: (08) 8525 3200Enrail: lightr@)ight.sa.gov.auWebsite: www.light.sa.gov.au

Ligln Resioral Courril ABN: l5 455 841 o15

Branch Officel2 Hansorr Street, Freeling. SA 5372

Far: (08) 8525 2441


Thank pu again fur lhe opporfunily to oqnr,nent on thsse matters, Please do not hesitrate lo contactme on 0418 895 481 or via [email protected] should 1ou ntsh to dlscuss the conbnt of this l€frerfurfter.

Yoqlt s:incarely

Cralg DoyleGsrcrtl Mtnagir, Strat gy & Davelopmant

AdelaidcPlalnsCounqil -20 cbb6r2017 Fags2



Chief Executive officerJames Miller

Adelalde ptains CounOfRFCEIVED

2 0 (}cT 2017

Submission from Margaret TilleF

Northern Food Bowl Protection Area Development Plan Amendment

The protectlon of and promoting sustainable growth of primary production land is an

admirable aim but the Northern Food Bowl Protection Area Development Plan Amendment

document frlls short of achieving that purpose.

The 2 components that are in conflict whh the purpose of the development plan amendment

document are the size of allotments and the integrity of the flood risk assessment to process

the appro\Elof these allotments in a flood plain.

The area designated as Horticulture Policy Area 3 and deplcted by Policy Area Map MaUl

under the heading "Land Division" makes provisions for planning consent to occur with the

result of an allotment the size on 8 hectares and subjected to flood hazard constraints for

resldential approval

The flood plain of the Gawler River has management problems which have had and continue

to need costly financial commitment. The Adelaide Plains Council and Government Agencies

can provide minimal documentation for Light River flood monitoring. These rivers, the Gawler

River and the Llght River, are recognlsed in the boundary allgnment of the Policy Area 3 and

the flooding of the zoned land .

The Gawler River Management Authority has been formed since 2002 to coordinate flood

protection activhies for the Gawler River but during the 2016 flood the growers found the

mitigation works had fuiled them. This quote illustrates the limitations associated with

Council's intentions and assurances that a risk based approach can be managed by the

planning. " lt should be noted that the hydrological model used to predict catchment rainfrlt

and corresponding river flodflooding events was amended by the chief hydrologist for the

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure(DPTI) Dr. David Kemp. This amended

modeltook a more conservative approach to flood prediction and hence there is a

requirement to seek additional actions to ensure 1 in 100 year flood protection level. Such a

level of flood protection is consistent with South Australian Planning Policy"' Light Regional

Council Minutes 25$ october 2016

The inundation of the land from the Light River has been accounted for bythe land owners

throughout the last tooyears . In 20ll Australian Water Environments carried out a mapping

study for the Light River and this has been included in the document Northern Food Bowl


Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment. The limited documentation and data is an

inadequate planning tool to assess the creation and the development on I hectare allotments.

In 20016 floodwaters from the Light River produced hazards which surpassed expectations ofany previous flood events.

The tenure of the land, in the Light Riverflood plain, comprises of predominately large land

holdings and the local landscape illustrates that cropping and grazlng pursuits occur. These

components are keen contributors to the South Australian economy. Any flooding has been

accepted as a challenge and managed without requests, to State or LocalGovernment from

the primary producers to flood proof the area.

A proliferation of small horticulture holdings brings allthe complications of the greater density

of occupation and the adverse impacts on downstream property outners.

It ls responsibility of the Adelaide plains Council to ensure that land In the flood plain is not

subjected to further risks by decreasing the size of the allotments. The project, Northem

Adelaide lrrigation Scheme, which promises a supply of recycled to the Adelaide Plains Council

needs to promote a strategy of joint accountability from South Australian Water and the

Council with the delivery site out of the flood plain.

The boundaries of the Horticulture Pollcy 3 need realignment to ensure the Llght River floodplain is avoided.

I seek the opportunity to speak at a public meeting about the DPA.


rrdelaide Plains Council

RECEIVED

2 0 ocl ?017Development Plan Amendment

'lhe background preamble for the DPA quotes two documents as the maln reference polnts for the

creation of the Amendment

Northem Food Bowl - A Framework for Future Action Report (Jensen 2013) .... thls report is stated as

provldlng guldance to all partles on potential action to secure long term sustainability of hortlculture

In the region.

It was orlginally tltled "State of Play- Vlrglnia and Northern Adelaide Plains Hortlcuhure Study''. Thls

report and many statlstics wlthln lt were used to construct tJre 2015 - Mallala Broadacre Study. The

statlsticat area that was surveyed in the Jensen (20131 report went no further than two kllometres

North of Two Wells and on to an area through Lewlston.... hardly a representatlve plcture ofBroadacre Agrlculture wlth lentlls not even belng lncluded as one of the key commodities. Lentils

have key processing plants at Two Wells and Carslake Road and nearby at Semaphore and Bowmans

which undertake direct export processing and marketing.

The Mallala Broadacre Farmlng Study used a Multl Crlterla Assesment (MCA) approach which

consldered a range of elements with one belng economlc value .,,... how can this be accurate when

the statistics used were not representatlve and rnisleading of broadacre agrlculture In the area.

Withholdlne lentlls and other key crops ftom the statistical data hardly glves a true representation ofbroadacre agriculture and associated lndustrles and underestlmates the economlc value to the

community. This study then quotes that 16350 hectares could be made avallable and dedlcated tolrrlgated hortlculture if 80 GL of water was avallabte ln fact only 12 GL ls really available therefore

only 2500 Ha is actually needed.

DPA Paper

Background Information Page 34

Hort Policy Area 3 "lncrease the slze of Hortlculture Pollcy Area to generally reflect land that was not

considered sultable for hlgh quallty broadacre (Referto Plannlng Aspects and Broadacre Farming

Study)" .......,., How can this statement be used when crlterla and statistics were not accurate and

reflect the true picture of the broadacre agriculture?

Attachment F

Prlmary Production zone

Objective 6................ fails to recognlse Two Wells bulk handling facility for receival storage and

processlng lentils also lgnores bulk handling facility on Carslake road for Australian Grain Exporters

who handle lentils and wheat.


Deslred Character

To maintain the agricultural importance and stability of the zone, it is vital that the size of the landholdings is not significantly reduced, or dwelling densities increased, and that future pressures for

, development in the zone will not-result in the conversion of,africultural land!g less productive uses.

Reducing holdings to 8 ha from 40 ha is a reduction of some 80% in size of land tenure and withallowed houses will increase dwelling density.

Principles of Development control

5 A dwelling should only be developed if:(althere is an exlsting demonstrated connection with farming or other primary production on theallotment(b) the location of the dwelling will not inhibit the continuation of farming, other primary productionorother development that is in keeping with the provisions of the zone(c) it is located more than:(i) 500 metres from an existing intensive animal keeping operation unless used in association withthat activity(ii) 300 metres from a bulk handling facility(d) it does not result in more than one dwelling per allotment(e) it is setback at least 40 metres from allotment boundaries.

Form and Character

17 Not more than one dwelling should be erected on any allotment of less than 80 hectares unless:(a) the additional dwelling is to be located on an operating farm(b) it is necessary for the accommodation of a person such as a manager, worker or a relative who isin

full time employment on the farm(c) it is located in reasonable proximity to the existing dweiling and connected to the same services

the existing dwelling; and(d) a separate allotment is not required.

With the above two extracts doesn't it allow for potentially two liveable dwellings on a 8 hablock....??

Land Division18 Land division, including boundary realignment, should only occur where at least one of thef ollowinga oolies:(a) it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation(b) it will promote economically productive, efficient and sustainable primary productron19 Land division is appropriate within Horticulture Policy Area 3 only when all of the following areachieved:(a) it will not result in an allotment with an area of less than 8 hectares(b) it wtll not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medium or High FloodHazardRisk Areas as shown on Overlop Mops - Development Constraints(c) it is serviced with guaranteed watcr supply of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain agenuinely commercial horticultural development.


(d) it results in no material adverse impacts on downstream property owners, in terms of water flowanddischarge of pollutants.

20 Land division is appropriate outside of Horticultural Policy Area 3 only when all of the followingare

achieved:(a) it will not result in an allotment with an area of less than 40 hectares(b) it will not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medium or High Flood

HazordRisk Areos as shown on Overlap Mops - Development Constroints.

ls 8 ha enough to sustain an economically productive, efficient and sustainable primary production

area given the need to create economies of size. Especially considering the need to accommodatethe 30-year plan constructed by State Government.ls not the food bowl to be export focused and therefore larger investment, quality control and size

of scale more suited to larger block size?

Horticulture can still happen in the Primary Production area on larger block sizes

All this development is proposed to occur up to the southern boundary of the River Light a knownflood plain area with Maps that were drawn back in 2011. Smaller block sizes and development ofdwellings throughout the flood plain will only increase the mitigation and liability as we have seen

currently with the Gawler River........ why develop more flood plain area.....?

I wish to speak at the public meeting

Regards

Neil Tiller

0418811583

[email protected]




Draft Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA (Consultation Version)



Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas Development Plan Amendment

Explanatory Statement and Analysis

For Consultation

Version 10 (25/8/2017)


mlewis.mallala

Rectangle


mlewis.mallala

Rectangle

Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA Adelaide Plains Council

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Have Your Say .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Explanatory Statement ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Need for the amendment ................................................................................................................. 6

Statement of Intent .......................................................................................................................... 8

Affected area .................................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of proposed policy changes .............................................................................................. 8

Legal requirements ........................................................................................................................... 9

Consultation ...................................................................................................................................... 9

The final stage ................................................................................................................................. 11

Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 12

The strategic context and policy directions .................................................................................... 12

Consistency with South Australia’s Strategic Plan ................................................................................................... 12

Consistency with the Planning Strategy ................................................................................................................... 13

Consistency with other key strategic policy documents .......................................................................................... 14

Investigations .................................................................................................................................. 15

Investigations undertaken prior to SOI .................................................................................................................... 15

Investigations undertaken to inform this DPA ......................................................................................................... 17

Recommended Policy Changes ....................................................................................................... 24

State Planning Policy Library update........................................................................................................................ 25

Consistency with the Residential Code .......................................................................................... 25

Statement of statutory compliance ................................................................................................ 25

Accords with the Planning Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 25

Accords with the Statement of Intent ...................................................................................................................... 25

Accords with other parts of the Development Plan ................................................................................................. 25

Complements the policies in the Development Plans for adjoining areas .............................................................. 26

Accords with relevant infrastructure planning ........................................................................................................ 26

Satisfies the requirements prescribed by the Regulations ...................................................................................... 26

References/Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 27

Schedule 4a Certificate ................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 31

The Amendment ............................................................................................................................................ 39


mlewis.mallala

Rectangle

Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA Adelaide Plains Council Table of Contents


mlewis.mallala

Rectangle

Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA Adelaide Plains Council Explanatory Statement

Have Your Say

This Development Plan Amendment (DPA) will be available for inspection by the public at:

Adelaide Plains Council Principal Office, 2A Wasleys Road, MALLALA SA

Two Wells Service Centre, 69 Old Port Wakefield Road, TWO WELLS SA

Two Wells Public Library 61 Old Port Wakefield Road, TWO WELLS SA

from 25 August 2017 until 20 October 2017

During this time anyone may make a written submission about any of the changes the DPA is proposing.

Submissions should be sent to:

Chief Executive Officer Adelaide Plains Council PO Box 18 MALLALA SA 5502 Or electronically to [email protected] referencing the DPA

Submissions should indicate whether the author wishes to speak at a public meeting about the DPA. If no-one requests to be heard, no public meeting will be held.

If requested, a public meeting will be held on Monday 30 October 2017 commencing at 5.30pm at the Adelaide Plains Council Chambers, Redbanks Road, Mallala.



Explanatory Statement

Introduction

The Development Act 1993 provides the legislative framework for undertaking amendments to a Development Plan. The Development Act 1993 allows either the relevant council or, under prescribed circumstances, the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993 (the Minister), to amend a Development Plan.

Before amending a Development Plan, a council must first reach agreement with the Minister regarding the range of issues the amendment will address. This is called a Statement of Intent. Once the Statement of Intent is agreed to, a Development Plan Amendment (DPA) (this document) is written, which explains what policy changes are being proposed and why, and how the amendment process will be conducted.

A DPA may include:

▪ An Explanatory Statement (this section)

▪ Analysis, which may include:

- Background information

- Investigations

- Recommended policy changes

- Statement of statutory compliance

▪ References/Bibliography

▪ Certification by Council’s Chief Executive Officer

▪ Appendices

▪ The Amendment.

Need for the amendment

This DPA intends to assist in implementing the State Government’s strategic and economic priority of enabling major primary production and horticulture growth on the Northern Adelaide Plains, whilst protecting South Australia’s primary food production region from urban encroachment.

Primary production and horticulture situated on the Northern Adelaide Plains are key elements of the food industry which is a major contributor the economic future of the Northern Adelaide Region. The region generates over one third of South Australia’s horticulture production, which equates to approximately 170,000 tonnes of fresh produce valued at over $340 million per annum. The State Government, through its Northern Economic Plan has identified that the horticulture and its associated food processing and distribution industries play a pivotal role in supporting the economic prosperity of South Australia in light of the closing of General Motors Holden in late 2017.



Agriculture including farming, grazing, and intensive animal keeping are identified as predominant land uses in the Adelaide Plains Council area (the ‘Council’), with other significant land uses being horse keeping, dog kennelling, grain storage, stock sale activities and weapons testing associated with the adjoining Port Wakefield Proof Range activities.

The southern portion of the Council is an established horticultural area that enjoys advantageous natural resource conditions, access to some water, major private and public investment in infrastructure, and is close to a large labour supply located in northern Adelaide. In addition, the region is located close to local markets, major interstate freight routes and distribution facilities at Pooraka and Edinburgh Park. This combination of factors is not replicated elsewhere in South Australia and has strategic importance to the State.

There is considerable potential for future employment growth within the Council north of the Gawler River, particularly in the food value adding and transport, storage and logistics sectors. Furthermore, there is also potential for growth in intensive animal keeping activities (mainly poultry) and broad acre farming, whilst the opportunity for a multispecies abattoir to be established in the vicinity of the livestock markets at Dublin has been identified and further expansion of the existing abattoir north east of Two Wells is recognised.

Water Supply

Horticulture occurring on the Adelaide Plains (including those areas north of the Gawler River) is supported by both underground water resources and the existing Virginia Pipeline System (VPS) which provides treated wastewater from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant for irrigation.

It is recognised that there are options being pursued to both extend the existing VPS to provide additional infrastructure and water for irrigation purposes and construct new irrigation infrastructure in the form of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS). The NAIS project seeks to deliver an additional 20 gigalitres of recycled water from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant for irrigation purposes. Together this infrastructure will facilitate the growth of food production and horticulture, feed and fodder crops and other food production related uses north of the Gawler River, whist creating an expected 3,500 jobs in the region.

This DPA provides the necessary policy framework to support the growth of horticultural activities and allied services in the APC area.

Flooding

The APC area is subject to flooding from both the Gawler River and Light River. Current development controls seek to restrict development on the Gawler River flood plain however are silent with respect to the Light River flood plain.

It has been long recognised that the area depicted as flood prone is inaccurate, having been prepared prior to the construction of the Bruce Eastick Flood Mitigation Dam on the North Para River (completed December 2007). Construction of this dam has in-turn altered the flood plain profile. Further, Council has now mapped the flooding hazard associated with the Light River which has otherwise been unavailable. It is therefore Council’s intention to introduce new flood hazard mapping into the Development Plan to provide more comprehensive and up-to-date information for those subject to flood inundation from both the Gawler River and the Light River. The insertion of new mapping is crucial to ensuring a risk based approach is administered when determining development on those areas identified as being prone to inundation of flood waters.



Statement of Intent

The Statement of Intent relating to this DPA was agreed to by the Minister on 12 April 2017.

The issues and investigations agreed to in the Statement of Intent have been undertaken or addressed.

Affected area

The area(s) affected by the proposed DPA is all of Council’s Primary Production Zone and existing industry zones within Two Wells.

Summary of proposed policy changes

The DPA proposes the following changes:

▪ Update the ‘Hazards’ module to align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6 and insertion of additional local content.

▪ Update the ‘Interface between Land Uses’ module to align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6 and insertion of additional policy content to manage potential interface conflict between different primary industry activities.

▪ Insert updated Development Plan Constraints mapping (hazard category maps) demonstrating the extent and location of flooding across the Gawler River Flood Plain Area.

▪ Insert new Development Plan Constraints mapping (hazard category maps) demonstrating the extent and location of flooding across the Light River Flood Plain Area.

▪ Amend the Non-Complying Tables within the Residential, Rural Living and Animal Husbandry Zones to reference the updated flood hazard categories, provide greater controls on development within the High Flood Hazard Risk Category Area and update policies relating to fencing within the flood plain.

▪ Update reference to flood policy across all general modules to reference flooding risk of the Light River and corresponding updates in the flood categorisation.

▪ Replace the existing Primary Production Zone to:

o align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6

o expand the ‘Horticulture Policy Area 3’

o update the Desired Character Statement to specifically reference the future availability of recycled water and the potential for additional intensive horticulture and allied industries

o insert new policy which envisages on-site energy generation where ancillary to an existing use

o amend land division policies

o Insertion of new ‘Complying’ development provisions which facilitate horticulture (including intensive production in an enclosed environment) across the zone, subject to conditions and link these to updated setback provisions contained in the zone



o amend various sections of the Non-Complying Table, including land division and dwelling

o update the Public Notification table to facilitate horticulture as a Category 1 or 2 development.

▪ Insertion of the Urban Employment Zone and rezoning of land to the west of Two Wells and south-east of Dublin for this purpose.

▪ Updating land division policy content within the Settlement Zone to reflect the identified flood hazard.

▪ Update maximum outbuilding floor space restrictions across the Rural Living and Animal Husbandry from 8% of the total area of the allotment to 25% of the total allotment area.

▪ Updating relevant zone, policy area and development plan constraints maps and map reference tables to reflect the change in structure of policy within the Development Plan. In showing the new Urban Employment Zone on Zone Map Mal/8, the opportunity has also been taken to correct an error on this Map. The reference to the Coastal Zone is to be replaced with reference to the Coastal Conservation Zone as there are no associated policies for the Coastal Zone contained within Council’s Development Plan. This will also bring this Map into alignment with the adjoining Zone Maps (to the north and south) which reference the Coastal Conservation Zone.

▪ Range of minor corrections, updates and consequential changes.

Legal requirements

Prior to the preparation of this DPA, council received advice from a person or persons holding prescribed qualifications pursuant to section 25(4) of the Development Act 1993.

The DPA has assessed the extent to which the proposed amendment:

▪ accords with the Planning Strategy

▪ accords with the Statement of Intent

▪ accords with other parts of council’s Development Plan

▪ complements the policies in Development Plans for adjoining areas

▪ accords with relevant infrastructure planning

▪ satisfies the requirements prescribed by the Development Regulations 2008.

Consultation

This DPA is now released for formal agency and public consultation. The following government agencies and organisations are to be formally consulted:

▪ Department for Premier and Cabinet

▪ Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

▪ Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (Planning and Assessment Unit)

▪ Department for Communities and Social Inclusion



▪ Department for Education and Child Development

▪ Department for Health and Ageing

▪ Department of Treasury and Finance

▪ Department for Primary Industries and Resources South Australia

▪ Department for Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology

▪ Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy

▪ Environment Protection Authority

▪ Renewal SA

▪ Country Fire Service

▪ State Emergency Service

▪ SA Police

▪ SA Power Networks

▪ Australian Rail Track Corporation

▪ NBN Co Limited

▪ SA Water

▪ APA Group/Envestra

▪ Telstra

▪ Origin Energy

▪ Epic Energy

▪ SeaGas

▪ Natural Resources – Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges

▪ Gawler River Floodplain Management Authority

▪ RDA - Barossa

▪ Leesa Vlahos MP

▪ Jon Gee MP

▪ Steven Griffiths MP



▪ City of Playford

▪ Light Regional Council

▪ Wakefield Regional Council

▪ Town of Gawler

The Barossa Council

▪ Hortex Alliance

▪ Other key horticulture and broad acre farming groups to be identified from previous studies

All written and verbal, agency and public submissions made during the consultation phase will be recorded, considered, summarised and responses provided. Subsequent changes to the DPA may occur as a result of this consultation process.

Important Note for Agencies: This DPA includes modules from the State Planning Policy Library.

As the policy library was subject to agency consultation during its development, agencies are requested to comment only on the range and application of the modules selected and not on the actual policy content, except where that policy has been included as a local addition. Agencies are invited to comment on any additional issues (if relevant).

The final stage

When the council has considered the comments received and made any appropriate changes, a report on this (the Summary of consultations and proposed amendments report) will be sent to the Minister.

The Minister will then either approve (with or without changes) or refuse the DPA.


Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA Adelaide Plains Council Analysis

Analysis

1. Background

Irrigated Primary Production

The Northern Adelaide Plains is recognised as a key primary industry zone, generating over one-third of the State’s horticulture production valued at over $340 million per annum (PIRSA, 2017). Whilst that area north of the Gawler River and located within the Adelaide Plains Council (the ‘Council’) has localised irrigated horticulture around Two Wells and Lewiston, the vast majority of the primary production across the Council area is characterised by broad acre farming pursuits.

The State Government’s Northern Adelaide Plains Agribusiness Initiative proposes to deliver up to 20 gigalitres of fit-for-purpose Class ‘A’ recycled water through the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS). The NAIS will see the expansion of trunk infrastructure to deliver recycled water from the Bolivar Waste Water Treatment Plant to new areas across the Plains.

Council recognises that the consistent supply of sustainable irrigation water will increase opportunities for the expansion of both alternative primary industries and allied services.

Current Development Plan controls differentiate between those primary production areas currently serviced by irrigation infrastructure (Horticulture Policy Area 3), and those areas which remain un-serviced by irrigation (balance of the Primary Production Zone). Whilst facilitating the growth of horticulture in the southern portion of the study area, there is cause to consider broad policy approaches to allow primary producers to diversify and the market to respond quickly to changing opportunities.

Allied Food Industries

Separate to the expansion of alternative and intensive primary industry activities is the potential growth of allied food industries. As discussed in the Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study (Section 3.2 below), allied food industries are those which establish to provide ancillary services to primary production and can include activities such as packing sheds, chemical resellers, value-add businesses etc.. Supporting the expansion of these allied industries in unison with the expansion of intensive primary industries will assist in facilitating the long term success of the agricultural sector across APC.

2. The strategic context and policy directions

2.1 Consistency with South Australia’s Strategic Plan South Australia’s Strategic Plan outlines a medium to long-term vision for the whole of South Australia. It has two important, complementary roles. Firstly, it provides a framework for the activities of the South Australian Government, business and the entire South Australian community. Secondly, it is a means for tracking progress state-wide, with the targets acting as points of reference that can be assessed periodically. The DPA supports the following targets of South Australia’s Strategic Plan:



Analysis

South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2011

Strategic Plan Objective/Targets Comment/Response

T37: Total exports – increase the value of South Australia’s export income to $25 billion by 2020

The DPA seeks to provide a policy environment which supports an increase in export potential.

T40: Food industry – Grow the contribution made by the South Australian food industry to $20 billion by 2020

The DPA supports Target 40 as it seeks to introduce policy which directly address the supply of both irrigated primary production land and land providing supporting industries.

T75: Sustainable water use – South Australia’s water resources are managed within sustainable limits by 2018

The DPA supports this target and builds upon the anticipated availability of Class A Recycled Water delivered through the NAIS. This in turn will assist in limiting the draw from both aquifer sources and the Gawler River.

2.2 Consistency with the Planning Strategy The Planning Strategy presents current State Government planning policy for development in South Australia. In particular, it seeks to guide and coordinate State Government activity in the construction and provision of services and infrastructure that influence the development of South Australia. It also indicates directions for future development to the community, the private sector and local government.

The following volumes of the Planning Strategy are relevant to this DPA:

▪ 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2017 Update

The DPA supports the policies of the Planning Strategy namely:

Policy Comment/Response 55 – Promote certainty to undertake development while at the same time providing scope for innovation

The DPA seeks the introduction of policy which provides clear direction for both expanded irrigated horticulture north of the Gawler River and the accommodation of allied food activities in support of these new primary industries.

56 – Ensure there are suitable land supplies for the retail, commercial and industrial sectors

This DPA supports the potential for expanded industrial land supply in support of allied food industries.

57 – Maintain and protect primary production and tourism assets in the Environment and Food Production Areas, while allowing for appropriate value-adding activities to increase investment opportunities

The DPA supports the development of value-add allied food industries across the Northern Adelaide Plains as further described in Council’s Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study. Development occurring within the study area will not detrimentally impact upon the intent of the EFPA.



58 – Ensure that the Environment and Food Production Areas, Character Preservation Districts and planning policies work in an integrated way to:

protect key primary production assets and opportunities.

facilitate local operating and investment conditions that support primary production and related agri-business development

enable timely business adjustment and climate change adaptation by primary producers

This DPA seeks to amend and add to current planning policy controls to ensure that growers in the Northern Adelaide Plains are positioned to take advantage of future market changes and opportunities which are further expanded by the availability of recycled water to support horticulture and related agri-business growth.

59 – Enable major new primary production and agri-business development across the Northern Adelaide and Barossa regions and in the Mount Barker-Murray Bridge corridor and prevent ad hoc land use changes that may compromise those investments.

This DPA directly supports this policy. Namely, the DPA seeks to encourage the development of horticulture where provided with appropriate recycled water supply and allied food industries. Appropriate policy amendments and additions are proposed which prevent ad hoc land use change.

60 – Ensure land use planning in and around the Virginia horticulture district aligns with projects for industry growth and revitalisation anticipated by the Northern Economic Plan.

Policy amendments and additions proposed as part of this DPA will maintain alignment with the Northern Economic Plan.

62 – Manage the interface between townships and adjacent primary production activities and areas of nature protection.

The introduction of new primary production activities in the form of irrigated horticulture into areas traditionally characterised by broadacre farming pursuits has the potential to alter current interface controls. This DPA explores this matter.

2.3 Consistency with other key strategic policy documents This DPA accords with other key policy documents:

2.3.1 Council’s Strategic Directions Report This DPA is consistent with Council’s Strategic Directions Report and helps deliver outcomes sought through a number of studies and DPA’s including:

▪ Light and Gawler Rivers Flood Prone Areas DPA – high priority

▪ Horticultural Lands and Rural Areas DPA – medium priority

▪ Industrial Land Supply study – medium priority

▪ Industrial Land DPA – low priority



Analysis

2.3.2 Infrastructure Planning Where relevant, a DPA must take into account relevant infrastructure planning (both physical and social infrastructure) as identified by Council (usually through the Strategic Directions Report), the Minister and/or other government agencies. The following infrastructure planning is of relevance to this DPA:

Government Agency Infrastructure Planning Comment/Response

Primary Industries and Regions SA - Northern Adelaide Plains Agribusiness Initiative (Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS))

The DPA supports the future expansion of recycled water north of the Gawler River via the NAIS, proposing amendments to the current planning policy landscape that facilitate the greatest opportunity presented by this important resource.

2.3.3 Current Ministerial and Council DPAs This DPA has taken into account the following Ministerial and Council DPAs which are currently being processed: ▪ Not applicable

2.3.4 Existing Ministerial Policy This DPA does not propose changes to existing Ministerial policy. 3. Investigations

3.1 Investigations undertaken prior to the SOI The following previous documents provide a comprehensive basis for the preparation of this DPA.

3.1.1 The Northern Food Bowl – A Framework for Future Action

The 2013 Northern Food Bowl – A Framework for Future Action report was a collaboration between Council, City of Playford, Natural Resources Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges, Department of Primary Industries Regions SA (PIRSA), Regional Development Australia – Barossa and Hortex.

This report sought to provide guidance to all parties on potential actions required to secure the long-term sustainability of the horticultural industry in the region. In doing so a range of Goals and Actions were identified which addressed specific areas of potential reform, including Land Use Planning and Building Policy.

Of particular note to this DPA are the following:

Goal Actions

A clear and consistent vision for horticulture supported by planning policy

That the vision for the area be described through a strong Desired Character Statement that…sets a vision of the area being ‘Adelaide’s Northern Food Bowl’



Goal Actions

Existing zoning be reviewed to ensure expansion of horticultural pursuits when water is available.

Horticultural uses appropriately located and zoned

All forms of horticultural uses should be supported;

Greenhouse clustering should be encouraged where there are industry benefits in accordance with the guiding principles of clustering through a DPA

Planning policy that strongly discourages further land division (except in greenhouse cluster precincts) or housing on productive land

A greenhouse cluster should allow limited subdivision to 2.5 hectares. This is seen as a viable unit size for small-to-medium scale greenhouses.

Planning policy that supports industry requirements for a diverse range of allotment sizes

With the exception of greenhouse cluster precincts, policy should not specify uniform or minimum allotment sizes

Planning policy that supports allied horticultural land uses

Through planning policy, enable and support the development of allied and value-adding horticultural uses

Shared responsibility for managing interface

Ensure future Development Plan policy requires a shared responsibility for managing the interface between horticultural and residential land uses rather than relying on the industry to provide buffers and limit activities in close proximity to residential development;

Support Development Plan policy that encourages a shared responsibility for managing the interface between horticulture and other agricultural uses, supported by a collaborative approach between adjoining growers/farmers and their respective representative bodies.

3.1.2 Mallala Broadacre Farming Study

In 2015, Council undertook a detailed study to assist in identifying the potential boundary between broadacre farming and irrigated horticulture to facilitate the creation of a well-planned food bowl. In making its recommendations, this study utilised a Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) approach which considered a range of elements including natural resources, economic value, environmental integrity and community values.

The findings and recommendations of this study identify approximately 16,350 hectares of land that could be made available and dedicated to irrigated horticulture activity with the provision of



Analysis

adequate water supply. The area in question generally aligns with that nominated for the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS) and is geographically located to the southern portion of the Council in and around Lewiston, Two Wells and the Gawler River.

3.1.3 The Northern Economic Plan – Look North

The Northern Economic Plan ‘Look North’ is a collaborative document prepared between State and Local Government which seeks to foster jobs and empower local communities in northern Adelaide. The plan focuses on three (3) strategic areas namely industry growth, thriving communities and responsive governments.

Whilst not having a direct relationship with the preparation of the plan, APC stands to benefit from actions to be delivered through the plan. Of particular relevance to this study is the focus area of agriculture, food and beverage which notes that for the past 17 years the state’s horticultural sector has increased in value and currently contributes some $250 million to the total state economy. To continue supporting this growth and provide for new opportunities the plan identifies a key project in the Northern Adelaide Plains Agribusiness Initiative.

This initiative sees the development of the NAIS which will provide an additional 20 gigalitres of recycled water from the Bolivar Waste Water Treatment Plan to support the expansion of irrigated horticulture and the development of new irrigation areas, including those areas north of the Gawler River.

3.2 Investigations undertaken to inform this DPA

In accordance with the Statement of Intent, the following investigations have been undertaken to inform this DPA:

3.2.1 Adelaide Plains Council Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study In July 2017, the Council prepared the ‘Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study’ (the ‘Study’). This study was undertaken to provide support for the expansion of primary industries associated with the NAIS, to offer clear guidance on what constitutes an allied food industry and to understand and recommend a policy setting which supports the expansion of primary industries and allied food industries.

Allied Food Industries

The Study identified the diversity of allied food industries and provided the following definitions:

Direct

Direct allied food industries are described as ‘those activities which occur predominantly as a result of, and in direct connection with, a primary production activity’. This definition recognises the direct supporting role the allied food industry plays to the success of the primary production activity. Examples of direct allied food industries include:

Washing/processing/packing of produce (e.g. packing shed); Winery; Bulk commodity storage; and Feed/hay processing mill.



Ancillary

Ancillary allied food industries are defined as ‘those activities which provide an ancillary service in support of primary production uses’. This definition differentiates those activities which are established to either provide a supporting function to primary production or those activities which value-add to primary produce. Examples of ancillary allied food industries include:

Chemical resellers;

Cold storage;

Transport and logistics (not directly associated with processing/processing and packaging);

Equipment sales and service;

Nurseries; and

Value-adding industries (e.g. food manufacturers).

The above activities are largely included within the definitions prescribed by Schedule 1 of the Development Regulations, 2008, namely ‘retail showroom’, ‘general industry’, ‘industry’, ‘light industry’, ‘service industry’, ‘service trade premise’ and ‘shop’.

Policy Setting

The study sought to understand the most appropriate policy setting to support allied food industries. In doing so, the Study recommended the continuation of current practice which allows certain allied food industries with a direct association to a primary industry use to occur in unison with the activities, whilst recognising the benefits which may be provided by siting those activities which do not rely upon, or have a direct relationship with on-site activities in a dedicated industry type zone. This approach provides for:

The co-location of ancillary allied food industries to gain efficiencies, both in the provision of infrastructure and the sharing of knowledge;

The management of potential interface conflict between allied food industries and residential/township activities;

The continuation of best practice planning;

The protection of primary production zoned land for primary industries and the management of incompatible land uses;

The availability of suitably zoned land for ‘primary’ allied value adding practices which facilitates larger scale activities which are out of character with the primary production zone; and

Market flexibility.

Recommendations

In proposing recommendations, the Study considered the availability and suitability of land, provision of supporting infrastructure and the above policy considerations. The following recommendations are noted within the Study:

1. Undertake investigations as part of the Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA with the intent to rezone land which is, or is capable of, being adequately serviced by infrastructure



Analysis

and sited accordingly for ancillary allied food services. Activities envisaged within a future ‘industry’ type zone would include those that are not dependent on activities occurring on-site.

2. Remove Horticulture Policy Area 3. This recommendation seeks to encourage and facilitate diversification of primary production activities whilst enabling primary producers to be adaptable and flexible to market influences.

3. Consider policy amendments which facilitate greenhouse development as a complying development, within the Primary Production Zone, subject to certain provisions being met (e.g. minimum setbacks, located outside or within the low flood risk area, achievement of buffer/interface controls on the new entrant).

4. Consider policy additions which allow direct allied food industries to occur throughout the Primary Production Zone and not depend on primary industry occurring on-site.

5. Explore land division policy approaches, including leases and/or licence as per Schedule 3 of the Development Regulations, 2008 to facilitate expansion of primary industries and allied food industries. Issues for consideration include (but are not limited to) the listing of land division as non-complying, the provision of land division subsequent to the establishment of an allied food industry.

6. Review current dwelling controls within the primary production zone to ensure priority is placed on protecting primary production and allied food industry uses.

7. Consider the availability and demand for workers accommodation and the most appropriate location for this form of development.

8. Investigate current planning controls and make recommendations to ensure energy generation can take place on-site when occurring in association with primary industries and allied food industries.

9. Update policies to ensure ‘Industry’ is merit within the Primary Production Zone where ancillary to activities on-site or for the purpose of processing primary production products.

10. Lobby the Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure for amendments and upgrades to the State road network to support higher productivity vehicles (e.g. B-Doubles) throughout the study area.

11. Consider Council’s road sealing program and its relationship to location and needs of future allied food industries.

3.2.2 Infrastructure The provision of adequate infrastructure for both primary industries and allied food industries will play an important supporting role in the success of the NAIS. As identified in the Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study, trunk and distribution electricity, gas and water infrastructure is located throughout the study area, whilst road access is available.

Accessibility to infrastructure is a key consideration in the rezoning of land for industry purposes.

3.2.3 Flooding Flooding from both the Gawler River and Light River continues to significantly influence development patterns across the Council. As identified in the SOI, Council’s Development Plan contains overlay mapping prepared in 1993 which identifies historic 1:100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flooding for the Gawler River and its wider catchment. This mapping is used by Council to determine the impact of flooding on life and property and guides the Development Assessment process.



Translation of Flood Categories

The Development Plan currently identifies flooding across three hazard categories (described as 1, 2 and 3) which are identified within Gazetted Plan ‘GRO Map 238/1993’. The three current Hazard Categories are based on:

Hazard Zone 1 - zero to 0.3 metres depth at flood where velocities are generally low; Hazard Zone 2 - 0.3 to 0.8 metres depth at flood where velocities are low, or 0.2 to 0.3

metres depth where velocities are high; and Hazard Zone 3 - 0.8 to two metres plus, depth of flood, even where velocities are very low,

or at depths 0.3 metres to 0.8 metres where velocities are high. A similar approach was taken by AWE in its mapping of both the Gawler River and Light River floodplains, based on the best practice principles set out within the report titled ‘Floodplain management in Australia: best practice principles and guidelines’ (SCARM Report 73) prepared by the Commonwealth Government in 2000.

Essentially, the levels of hazard relate to the risk created by the floodwaters. This is determined based on:

floodwater depth and velocity which will impact on the abilities for wading through water, level of damage created to structures, the possibility of scouring, buoyancy and collection / impact of debris;

the rate of rise of floodwater which will impact on the abilities of community to react and evacuate;

duration of flooding which can impact on isolation of communities and requirements of rescue efforts;

ability to evacuate in terms of numbers of people, distance, bottlenecks and safe routes for evacuation (SCARM, 2000).

Based on these criteria, the SCARM report recommends four hazard categories as defined below:

Low – there are no significant evacuation problems. If necessary, children and the elderly could wade to safety with little difficulty; maximum flood depths and velocities along evacuation routes are low; evacuation distances are short. Evacuation is possible by a sedan-type motor vehicle, even a small vehicle. There is ample time for flood forecasting, flood warning and evacuation; evacuation routes remain trafficable for at least twice as long as the time required for evacuation.

Medium – fit adults can wade to safety, but children and the elderly may have difficulty; evacuation routes are longer, maximum flood depths and velocities are greater. Evacuation by sedan-type vehicle is possible in the early stages of flooding, after which 4WD vehicles or trucks are required. Evacuation routes remain trafficable for at least 1.5 times as long as the necessary evacuation time.

High – fit adults have difficulty in wading to safety; wading evacuation routes are longer again; maximum flood depths are greater (up to 1.0m and 1.5m/s respectively). Motor vehicle evacuation is possible only by 4WD vehicles and trucks and only in the early stages of flooding. Boats or helicopters may be required. Evacuation routes remain trafficable only up to the minimum evacuation time.

Extreme – boats or helicopters are required for evacuation; wading is not an option because of the rate of rise of depth and velocity of floodwaters. Maximum flood depths and velocities are over 1.0m and over 1.5m/s respectively.(SCARM, 2000)



Analysis

As a result, the identified Hazard categories have utilised the following depth and flow velocity criteria:

Low - zero to 0.3 metres depth at flood where velocities are generally low (up to 0.3m/s)

Medium - up to 0.6 metres depth at flood where velocities are low, or from 0.3 metres depth where velocities are high (up to 0.8m/s);

High – up to 1.2 metres depth of flood, even where velocities are very low, or at depths from 0.6 metres where velocities are high (up to 1.5m/s);

Extreme - two metres plus, depth of flood, even where velocities are very low, or at depths from 1.2 metres where velocities are high (from 1.5m/s).

These categories differ slightly from those found within the existing Development Plan; however they represent more up-to-date modelling than previous figures and are considered to be appropriate for use in the context of defining the flood extent. There is, however, value in maintaining a three-level tier to reference the hazard categories within the Development Plan as it maintains a level of consistency and ease of use for practitioners. This is also practical as the desired limitation of land uses is similar in both the ‘High’ and ‘Extreme’ Hazard categories.

Figure 1: Flood Hazard Ratings (SCARM 2000)

Gawler River Flooding

Since first inserting the flood mapping with Council’s Development Plan, there has been a concerted effort by the Gawler River Flood Plain Management Authority (GRFMA), of which Council is a member, to undertake works with the intent of protecting properties on the Gawler River floodplain from a 1:100 year ARI flood event. Key capital works projects include the construction of the Bruce Eastick Flood Mitigation Dam in the North Para River (2007) and the installation of a spillway in the existing South Para reservoir (2010).

As a result of these works, new flood plain mapping was prepared in 2008 to understand what influence the construction of the Bruce Eastick Flood Mitigation Dam had on the anticipated flood profile. The process used to prepare this mapping was based on best practice principles and flood hazard categories contained in the report titled ‘Floodplain management in Australia: best practice principles and guidelines’ (SCARM Report 73) prepared by the Commonwealth Government.



The mapping which was prepared based on these principles is more detailed and alters the floodplain profile. Replacement of the existing 1993 flood hazard mapping with the updated 2008 flood hazard mapping is a key component of this DPA.

Light River Flooding

Whilst known to cause flooding impact, the extent and characteristics of 1:100 year ARI flood event from the Light River has never been identified through formal flood mapping contained in Council’s Development Plan.

Recognising the importance of understanding the flood impact and hazard resulting from flooding of the Light River, Council engaged Australian Water Environments (AWE) to prepare the 2011 ‘Light River Floodplain Mapping Study’. This study and the associated flood hazard maps were prepared based on the principles contained in the SCARM Report.

The Light River has many tributaries, however virtually no catchment across the Council area (other than the river channel itself). Given the topography of the Council and the channel capacity in the lower reaches, flooding is a major constraint.

Figure 2: River Light Flood Inundation Mapping (AWE 2011)

This DPA will insert new flood hazard mapping for the Light River (and where relevant, planning policy) based on the 2011 study.



Analysis

3.2.4 Interface between Primary Production Uses Interface conflict is recognised and managed through the existing ‘Interface between Land Uses’ module contained in the General Section of the Development Plan. The controls contained in this module provide guidance on matters such as noise, vibration, light spill etc. and largely address conflict arising between primary production and residential activities.

However, there is growing recognition of the potential conflict which arises between alternative primary industry activities, with little guidance provided through policy on this matter. Conflict which may arise between these uses include:

Spray drift;

Dust;

Noise;

Odour; and

Traffic movements. The matter of spray drift is particularly topical and the potential for conflict on the Northern Adelaide Plains is heightened as new ‘chemical-sensitive’ land uses such as horticulture (both open air and enclosed environments) and viticulture are introduced into a landscape traditionally characterised by broadacre farming activities with generally consistent chemical regimes.

In order to understand the potential issues, PIRSA convened a working group throughout 2015-16 which comprised members from:

Local Government (Light Regional Council and Barossa Council);

State Government (DPTI, EPA, PIRSA); and

Industry Groups (Primary Producers SA and Grain Producers SA). The full suite of recommendations is contained in a report titled ‘Report of the PIRSA Buffers Working Group’ (2017), however at the heart of the report is an understanding that the matter of spray drift is complex with multiple players including:

Federal Government – the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) who is responsible for setting chemical label requirements (i.e. mandatory downwind no-spray zones, nozzle types etc.);

State Government – PIRSA and particularly Biosecurity SA (Rural Chemicals Operations) who is responsible for the implementation of the APVMA label requirements and management of spray drift complaints;

Local Government – to a much lesser degree Local Government who consider applications for change of land use; and

Farmers – responsible for the proper application of chemicals in accordance with label requirements.

There is no single clear solution for the management of interface conflict arising from spray drift and whilst noted as broad concepts in current policy, there is little in the way of detailed policy controls. This DPA recommends the inclusion of additional local policy content which specifically addresses a need for new entrants to manage spray drift and the associated buffers on their land, which in turn recognises current land uses and the important of land use continuity.



4. Recommended Policy Changes

Following is a list of the recommended policy changes based on the investigations of this DPA:

▪ Update the ‘Hazards’ module to align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6 and insertion of additional local content, including that which specifically addresses flooding of the Gawler River and Light River.

▪ Update the ‘Interface between Land Uses’ module to align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6 and insertion of additional policy content to manage potential interface conflict between different primary industry activities.

▪ Insert updated Development Plan Constraints mapping (hazard category maps) demonstrating the extent and location of flooding across the Gawler River Flood Plain Area.

▪ Insert new Development Plan Constraints mapping (hazard category maps) demonstrating the extent and location of flooding across the Light River Flood Plain Area.

▪ Amend the Non-Complying Tables within the Residential, Rural Living and Animal Husbandry Zones to reference the updated flood hazard categories, provide greater controls on development within the High Flood Hazard Risk Category Area and update policies relating to fencing within the flood plain.

▪ Update reference to flood policy across all general modules to reference flooding risk of the Light River and corresponding updates in the flood categorisation.

▪ Replace the existing Primary Production Zone to:

o align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6

o Increase the size of the ‘Horticulture Policy Area 3’

o update the Desired Character Statement to specifically reference the future availability of recycled water and the potential for additional intensive horticulture and allied industries

o insert new policy which envisages on-site energy generation where ancillary to an existing use

o amend land division policies

o Insertion of new ‘Complying’ development provisions which facilitate horticulture (including intensive production in an enclosed environment) across the zone, subject to conditions

o amend various sections of the Non-Complying Table, including land division and dwelling

o update the Public Notification table to facilitate horticulture as a Category 1 or 2 development.

▪ Insertion of the Urban Employment Zone and rezoning of land to the west of Two Wells and south-east of Dublin for this purpose.

▪ Updating land division policy content within the Settlement Zone to reflect the identified flood hazard.

▪ Update maximum outbuilding floor space restrictions across the Rural Living and Animal Husbandry from 8% of the total area of the allotment to 25% of the total allotment area.



Analysis

▪ Updating relevant zone, policy area and development plan constraints maps and map reference tables to reflect the change in structure of policy within the Development Plan. In showing the new Urban Employment Zone on Zone Map Mal/8, the opportunity has also been taken to correct an error on this Map. The reference to the Coastal Zone is to be replaced with reference to the Coastal Conservation Zone as there are no associated policies for the Coastal Zone contained within Council’s Development Plan. This will also bring this Map into alignment with the adjoining Zone Maps (to the north and south) which reference the Coastal Conservation Zone.

▪ Range of minor corrections, updates and consequential changes.

4.1 State Planning Policy Library update

Council resolved in the SOI that it would update relevant components of the Development Plan to the latest version of the State Planning Policy Library – version 6. A summary and analysis of the changes is contained in the Appendices.

5. Consistency with the Residential Code

N/A

6. Statement of statutory compliance

Section 25 of the Development Act 1993 prescribes that the DPA must assess the extent to which the proposed amendment:

▪ accords with the Planning Strategy

▪ accords with the Statement of Intent

▪ accords with other parts of council’s Development Plan

▪ complements the policies in Development Plans for adjoining areas

▪ accords with relevant infrastructure planning

▪ satisfies the requirements prescribed by the Development Regulations 2008.

6.1 Accords with the Planning Strategy

This DPA is consistent with the direction of the Planning Strategy as discussed under Section 2.2 above.

6.2 Accords with the Statement of Intent

The DPA has been prepared in accordance with the Statement of Intent agreed to on 12 April 2017. In particular, the proposed investigations outlined in the Statement of Intent have been addressed in section 3.2 of this document.



6.3 Accords with other parts of the Development Plan

The policies proposed in this DPA are consistent with the format, content and structure of the Mallala Council Development Plan.

For instance, the Development Plan maintains the use of local content (where appropriate) and mapping format whilst also introducing updated and new flood mapping which are consistent.

6.4 Complements the policies in the Development Plans for adjoining areas

The DPA’s intent to support the growth of horticulture across the Northern Adelaide Plains is consistent with the direction of adjoining Councils, particularly the City of Playford and Light Regional Council.

Further, adjoining Development Plans have been, or are to be, the subject of updated Gawler River flood hazard mapping. The DPA introduces this mapping, along with new mapping for the Light River.

Accordingly, the policies proposed in this DPA will not affect and will complement the policies of Development Plans for adjoining areas.

6.5 Accords with relevant infrastructure planning

This DPA complements current infrastructure planning for the Council area, as discussed in section 2.3.2 of this document. 6.6 Satisfies the requirements prescribed by the Regulations

The requirements for public consultation (Regulation 11) and the public meeting (Regulation 12) associated with this DPA will be met.



References/Bibliography

References/Bibliography

Arris, Agricultural and Environmental, 2015, Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme: Market Proving Study. Australian Water Environments, 2008, Floodplain Mapping for the Gawler River – Technical Report Volume 1. Australian Water Environments, 2008, Floodplain Mapping for the Gawler River Project – Flood Mitigation Options – Preliminary Assessment.

Australian Water Environments, 2011, Light River Floodplain Mapping.

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2015, Minister’s Specification SA H3.2 – Concession for Farm Buildings.

Light Regional Council Development Plan, Consolidated 8 December 2016.

Jensen Planning + Design, 2013, The Northern Food Bowl - A Framework for Future Action

Planning Aspects, 2015, Mallala Broadacre Farming Study

Primary Industries and Regions SA, 2017, Northern Adelaide Plains Agribusiness Initiative, http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/major_programs/northern_adelaide_plains_agribusiness_initiative

Primary Industries and Regions SA, 2017, Report of the PIRSA Buffers Working Group 2015-16, http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/regions/report_of_the_pirsa_buffers_working_group_2015-16

State of SA, Northern Economic Plan, 2016 SA Water, 2015, Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme Phase One Stakeholder Engagement Report. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM), Floodplain Management in Australia: Best Practice Principles and Guidelines – SCARM Report 73, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. URPS, 2017, Adelaide Plains Council Allied Food Industries Land Supply Study.



mlewis.mallala

Rectangle


Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A - Summary of Recommended Policy Changes

Appendix B – State Planning Policy Library update



mlewis.mallala

Rectangle


Appendices Appendix A ‐ Summary of Recommended Policy Changes

Appendix A ‐ Summary of Recommended Policy Changes Summary of Recommended Policy Changes

The below table identifies key policy changes proposed as part of this DPA:

Issue Current Policy

Comment and Recommended Policy Change

Hazards Module

Version 5 Update to Version 6 Insert additional local content, including that which

specifically addresses flooding of the Gawler River and Light River

Flood policies are based on best practice principles as outlined in the corresponding flood hazard studies

Interface between Land Uses Module

Version 5 Update to Version 6 Delete existing and insert new policy content to manage

potential interface conflict between different primary industry activities

Insertion of this clarifying policy recognises the likely changes in land use which will occur across the Northern Adelaide Plains as recycled water becomes available and the potential interface conflict between existing primary industries and new sensitive primary industries

Gawler River flood hazard mapping and policies

1993 mapping Update Development Plan Constraints mapping identifying flood hazard across the Gawler River Flood Plain to that prepared in 2015

Current Development Plan flood hazard mapping and policies are based on outdated data from 1993. Since this time works have been undertaken upstream to manage flooding and as such the flooding profile has altered. As per the Hazards Module, best practice flood management has advanced and policies are to be updated.

Light River flood hazard mapping and policies

Nil Insert flood hazard mapping for the Light River Flood Plain It has long been recognised that flooding from the Light River presents a considerable development constraint. Mapping of this impact was prepared in 2011 and is to be inserted within the Development Plan.


Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA Adelaide Plains Council Appendices Appendix A– Summary of Recommended Policy Changes




Version 5 Update to Version 6 Increase land area associated with ‘Horticulture Policy Area

3’ update the Desired Character Statement to specifically

reference the future availability of recycled water and the potential for additional intensive horticulture and allied industries

insert new policy which envisages on-site energy generation where ancillary to an existing use

amend land division policies Insertion of new ‘Complying’ development provisions which

facilitate horticulture (including intensive production in an enclosed environment) across the zone, subject to conditions

amend various sections of the Non-Complying Table, including land division and dwelling

update the Public Notification table to facilitate horticulture as a Category 1 or 2 development.

Policy is to be updated to reference new flood hazard mapping and categorisation. Given the expansion of recycled water across the Northern Adelaide Plains, Development Plan policy is to be updated to provide a supporting environment for both the expansion of horticulture and the accommodation of associated supporting industries/businesses and value-add food processing/packaging etc.


Nil Insert the Urban Employment Zone

To facilitate the suitable accommodation of associated supporting industries/businesses and value-add food processing/packing etc. land to the west of Two-Wells and south-east of Dublin is to be rezoned to Urban Employment.

Horticulture Policy Area

Horticulture Policy Area 3

Increase the size of the Horticulture Policy Area to generally reflect land that was not considered suitable for high quality broadacre (refer to Planning Aspects Broadacre Farming Study)

Maximum outbuilding floor space (Rural

Maximum 8% of total area of allotment

Increase maximum outbuilding floor area to 25%



Appendices Appendix A ‐ Summary of Recommended Policy Changes



Living Zone and Animal Husbandry Zone)

Given the diversity of allotment sizes, Council has recognised that an 8% limitation is overly restrictive. A designation of 25% provides for a suitable compromise.



mlewis.mallala

Rectangle


Appendices Appendix B ‐ State Planning Policy Library Update

Appendix B – State Planning Policy Library Update Planning Policy Library Update

Current Module New Module Comment / Noted Variations

Hazards Module – Version 5 Hazards Module – Version 6 Update to recognise the amended flood mapping for Gawler River and insert new content to identify flooding of the Light River

Interface between Land Uses Module - Version 5

Interface between Land Uses Module - Version 6

Carry forward existing local additions and insert new local additions to recognise greater interface conflict matters

Primary Production Zone – Version 5

Primary Production Zone – Version 6

Update Zone policy content as per library



mlewis.mallala

Rectangle


Amendment Instructions Table



The Amendment

For Consultation


Amendment Instructions Table Name of Local Government Area: Adelaide Plains Council

Name of Development Plan: Mallala Council Development Plan (now named Adelaide Plans Council) Name of DPA: Northern Food Bowl Protection Areas DPA

The following amendment instructions (at the time of drafting) relate to the Council Development Plan consolidated on 21 April 2016.

Where amendments to this Development Plan have been authorised after the aforementioned consolidation date, consequential changes to the following amendment instructions will be made as necessary to give effect to this amendment.

Am

endm

ent I

nstr

uctio

n N

umbe

r

Method of Change

Amend

Replace

Delete

Insert

Detail what in the Development Plan is to be amended, replaced, deleted or inserted.

If applicable, detail what material is to be inserted and where. Use attachments for large bodies of material.

Is

Ren

umbe

ring

requ

ired

(Y/N

)

Subsequent Policy cross-references requiring update

(Y/N) if yes please specify.

GENERAL SECTION PROVISIONS (including figures and illustrations contained in the text) Amendments required (Yes/No): Yes

General Section Hazards Module 1. Replace Hazards Module with that content contained in

Attachment A N N

Infrastructure

2. Delete PDC 8 Y N

Interface between Land Uses Module

3. Replace Interface between Land Uses module with that content N N




contained in Attachment B

Animal Keeping Module

4. Replace Animal Keeping Module PDC 3(e) with the following:

“only be undertaken on areas which are filled to a height of 300 millimetres above the Australian Height Datum (AHD) height for a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event where located within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas depicted on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints.

N N

Residential

5. Replace PDC 50 (b) with the following:

(b) the dependent accommodation has a floor area not exceeding 100 square metres.

N N

ZONE AND/OR POLICY AREA AND/OR PRECINCT PROVISIONS (including figures and illustrations contained in the text) Amendments required (Yes/No): Yes Urban Employment Zone

6. Insert Immediately after the policies for the “Township Zone” the contents of Attachment C

N N


7. Replace PDC 5 with the following:

The total combined floor area of dog kennels, sheds, stables, garages and other buildings (excluding buildings and structures used for horticulture) should not cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the allotment.

N N

8. Replace Reference to Flood Hazard Zone 3 or Flood Hazard Zone 2 within PDC 3 with the following:

‘Within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints, buildings should not be erected except where it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes.’

N N

9. Replace Reference to Flood Hazard Zone 3 or Flood Hazard Zone 2 within PDC 4 with the following:

‘Within the Medium Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints,

N N


dwellings and other buildings used for human habitation should only be undertaken if supported by civil engineering advice.’

10. Delete PDC 8 Y N

11. Replace PDC 12 with the content of Attachment D N N

12. Replace The non-complying table with the content contained in Attachment E

N N

Primary Production Zone 13. Replace The entire Primary Production Zone with the content

contained in Attachment F N N

Residential Zone

14. Replace PDC 9 with the content contained in Attachment G N N

15. Replace PDC 14 as follows:

“14 No more than 3 dogs should be kept on an allotment”

N N

16. Replace The non-complying table with the content contained in Attachment H

N N

Rural Living Zone

17. Replace PDC 8 with the content of Attachment I N N

18. Delete PDC 9 Y N

19. Replace PDC 12 with the following:

The total combined floor area of dog kennels, sheds, stables, garages and other buildings (excluding buildings and structures used for horticulture) should not cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the allotment

N N

20. Replace PDC 17 with the content of Attachment J N N

21. Replace The non-complying table with the content contained in Attachment K

N N

Settlement Zone

22. Amend Within the Non-complying table reference to Land Division to read:

Land Division:

Except where (a) and (b) are achieved:

N N




(a) the allotment has a minimum area of 1200 square metres

(b) the land is not located wholly within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Community Zone: Recreation Policy Area 1 23. Insert In paragraph 6 of the Desired Character Statement

after the words inundation by floodwaters from the Gawler River…the following:

‘and the Light River catchments.’

N N

TABLES Amendments required (Yes/No): No

MAPPING (Structure Plans, Overlays, Enlargements, Zone Maps, Policy Area & Precinct Maps) Amendments required (Yes/No): Yes

Map Reference Tables 24. Insert After ‘Township Zone’ in the Zone Maps section:

‘Urban Employment Zone’ and reference to Map Numbers ‘Mal/1, Mal/8, Mal/24’

N N

25. Insert For ‘Horticulture Policy Area 3’ in the Policy Area Maps section, in numerical order under Map Numbers, reference to:

‘Mal/1, Mal/6, Mal/7’

N N

26. Insert For ‘Development Constraints’ in the Overlay Maps section, in numerical order under Map Numbers, reference to:

‘Mal/5’; Mal/6’; ‘Mal/7’; ‘Mal/8’; ‘Mal/9’; ‘Mal/19’; ‘Mal/22’

N N

Map(s) 27. Replace Relevant maps with the contents of Attachment L N N

28. Insert New Maps in Attachment M as follows:

‘Overlay Map Mal/5 – Development Constraints’ after ‘Location Map Mal/5’

‘Overlay Map Mal/6 – Development Constraints’ after ‘Overlay Map Mal/6 – Transport’

N N







‘Zone Map Mal/24’ after ‘Precinct Map Mal/23’ ‘Policy Area Map Mal/1’ after ‘Zone Map Mal/1’ ‘Policy Area Map Mal/6’ after ‘Zone Map Mal/6’ ‘Policy Area Map Mal/7’ after ‘Zone Map Mal/7’



Attachment A

Attachment A


Hazards

OBJECTIVES 1 Maintenance of the natural environment and systems by limiting development in areas susceptible to

natural hazard risk.

2 Development located away from areas that are vulnerable to, and cannot be adequately and effectively protected from the risk of natural hazards.

3 Critical community facilities such as hospitals, emergency control centres, major service infrastructure

facilities, and emergency service facilities located where they are not exposed to natural hazard risks.

4 Development located and designed to minimise the risks to safety and property from flooding.

5 Protection of life and property from the effects of flooding by:

(a) The prevention of development which could cause a potential hazard in the event of a major flood

(b) development within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints which minimises impedance to the flow of floodwaters

6 Development located to minimise the threat and impact of bushfires on life and property.

7 Expansion of existing non-rural uses directed away from areas of high bushfire risk.

8 The environmental values and ecological health of receiving waterways and marine environments

protected from the release of acid water resulting from the disturbance of acid sulphate soils.

9 Protection of human health and the environment wherever site contamination has been identified or is suspected to have occurred.

10 Appropriate assessment and remediation of site contamination to ensure land is suitable for the proposed

use and provides a safe and healthy living and working environment.

11 Minimisation of harm to life, property and the environment through appropriate location of development and appropriate storage, containment and handling of hazardous materials.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 Development should be excluded from areas that are vulnerable to, and cannot be adequately and

effectively protected from, the risk of hazards.

2 Development located on land subject to hazards as shown on the Overlay Maps - Development Constraints should not occur unless it is sited, designed and undertaken with appropriate precautions being taken against the relevant hazards.

3 There should not be any significant interference with natural processes in order to reduce the

exposure of development to the risk of natural hazards.


Flooding 4 Development should not occur on land where the risk of flooding is likely to be harmful to

safety or damage property.

5 Development should not be undertaken in areas liable to inundation by tidal, drainage or flood waters unless the development can achieve all of the following:

(a) it is developed with a public stormwater system capable of catering for a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event

(b) buildings are designed and constructed to prevent the entry of floodwaters in a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event.

6 Within the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on the Overlay Maps – Development

Constraints:

(a) the finished floor level for dwellings, buildings for the keeping of animals, and gully traps should be a minimum of 300 millimetres above the height of a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event of the Gawler River or Light River or natural surface level, whichever is greater

(b) the finished floor level for outbuildings should be a minimum of 150 millimetres above the height of a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event of the Gawler River or Light River or natural surface level, whichever is greater

(c) allotments should contain sufficient area to accommodate the uses for which the land is intended

(d) filling for purposes ancillary to or associated with an approved use of land should be to a maximum of 100 millimetres above natural ground level

(e) filling required to raise the finished floor level of a building should not extend more than 10 metres beyond the external walls of that building

(f) driveways should be: (i) filled to a maximum of 100 millimetres above natural ground level

(ii) no more than 5 metres wide.

7 Development, including earthworks associated with development, should not do any of the following:

(a) impede the flow of floodwaters through the land or other surrounding land

(b) increase the potential hazard risk to public safety of persons during a flood event

(c) aggravate the potential for erosion or siltation or lead to the destruction of vegetation during a flood

(d) cause any adverse effect on the floodway function

(e) increase the risk of flooding of other land

(f) obstruct a watercourse. 8 Additions to dwellings located on land subject to the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk

Areas or inundation by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event should be in the


form of upper level additions and should not increase the total floor area at ground level of the dwelling.

9 Buildings for human habitation and residential outbuildings (e.g. garages or sheds) proposed on land subject to flooding or inundation by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event should be designed:

(a) to withstand forces arising from flow, debris and buoyancy pressure

(b) to ensure that wiring, power outlets and fixed electrical items (such as air-conditioning

units) are positioned above the envisaged flood level

10 Residential outbuildings (e.g. garages or sheds) on land subject to flooding or inundation by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event should: (a) not be used for living purposes

(b) not exceed 60 square metres in total floor area

11 Permanent storage of goods and equipment on land liable to inundation by floodwaters should

be at least 300 millimetres above the predicted level of a 1-in-100 year annual return interval flood event.

12 Development should not occur where access by emergency vehicles or essential utility service vehicles would be prevented by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event.

13 Educational establishments, child care and aged care facilities should not be located in areas

that may be affected by a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event unless public safety can be protected and safe evacuation is available if needed.

14 Emergency service facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, police stations and other similar

types of facilities should be located above the predicted level for a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event.

Gawler River and Light River Flood Hazard Risk Areas The following principles of development control apply to development located within the Gawler River or Light River Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints. These principles of development control are additional to others contained within this development plan, and shall prevail where conflict may exist.

15 Development should be sited, designed and undertaken with appropriate precautions consistent with the relevant flood risk category as described in the table below:

Flood Hazard Risk Area Water Depth and Flow Velocity

Low (relates to low depth and low velocity flooding where evacuation via wading by people is possible and escape by small vehicle is achievable)

Zero to 0.3 metres depth at flood where velocities are generally low (up to 0.3 metres per second)


Medium (relates to areas where the flood depth is deeper and/or flows are faster where wading through water by children and elderly is more difficult and evacuation by small car is only possible in the early stages of flooding, with 4WD vehicles or trucks required at later stages)

Up to 0.6 metres depth at flood where velocities are low, or from 0.3 metres depth where velocities are high (up to 0.8 metres per second).

High (relates to deeper and or fast flow of waters where wading through water is either difficult or impossible for adults and evacuation is required by boat or helicopter)

From 0.6 metres (including areas of 2 metres plus) depth of flood, even where velocities are very low, or at depths from 0.6 metres where velocities are high (up to 1.5 metres per second and greater).

16 Development outside of the Medium and High Flood Hazard Risk Areas should have all-

weather vehicular access that does not require access to it by road across land within a Medium or High Flood Risk Area.

17 Development of a dwelling should only occur if the site is located within the Low Flood Hazard Risk Area.

18 Allotments within the Low Flood Hazard Risk Area should contain sufficient area to

accommodate the uses for which the land is intended.


(a) not result in additional allotments created wholly within the Medium and High Flood Hazard Risk Areas

(b) provide public access to the banks of the river in the form of a reserve or easement necessary for public utility services or to facilitate the construction of flood protection works associated with a regional flood mitigation scheme.

20 Filling required to raise the finished floor level of a building should:

(a) not extend more than 7 metres beyond the external walls of that building

(b) be of good quality composition and compaction providing suitable ground stability in the event of

flooding. 21 Filling for ancillary purposes such as driveways, access tracks, vehicle parking areas and crop rows

should be:

(a) limited to a maximum of 100 millimetres above natural ground level

(b) no more than 5 metres wide. Bushfire 22 The following bushfire protection principles of development control apply to development of land identified

as General, Medium and High bushfire risk areas as shown on the Bushfire Protection Area BPA Maps - Bushfire Risk.


23 Development in a Bushfire Protection Area should be in accordance with those provisions of the Minister’s Code: Undertaking development in Bushfire Protection Areas that are designated as mandatory for Development Plan Consent purposes.

24 Buildings and structures should be located away from areas that pose an unacceptable bushfire risk as a result of one or more of the following:

(a) vegetation cover comprising trees and/or shrubs

(b) poor access

(c) rugged terrain

(d) inability to provide an adequate building protection zone

(e) inability to provide an adequate supply of water for fire fighting purposes.

25 Residential, tourist accommodation and other habitable buildings should:

(a) be sited on the flatter portion of allotments and avoid steep slopes, especially upper slopes, narrow

ridge crests and the tops of narrow gullies, and slopes with a northerly or westerly aspect

(b) be sited in areas with low bushfire hazard vegetation and set back at least 20 metres from existing hazardous vegetation

(c) have a dedicated and accessible water supply available at all times for fire fighting.

26 Extensions to existing buildings, outbuildings and other ancillary structures should be sited and

constructed using materials to minimise the threat of fire spread to residential, tourist accommodation and other habitable buildings in the event of bushfire.

27 Buildings and structures should be designed and configured to reduce the impact of bushfire through

using simple designs that reduce the potential for trapping burning debris against the building or structure, or between the ground and building floor level in the case of transportable buildings.

28 Land division for residential or tourist accommodation purposes within areas of high bushfire risk should

be limited to those areas specifically set aside for these uses. 29 Where land division does occur it should be designed to:

(a) minimise the danger to residents, other occupants of buildings and fire fighting personnel

(b) minimise the extent of damage to buildings and other property during a bushfire

(c) ensure each allotment contains a suitable building site that is located away from vegetation that would pose an unacceptable risk in the event of bushfire

(d) ensure provision of a fire hazard separation zone isolating residential allotments from areas that pose an unacceptable bushfire risk by containing the allotments within a perimeter road or through other means that achieve an adequate separation.

30 Vehicle access and driveways to properties and public roads created by land division should be designed

and constructed to: (a) facilitate safe and effective operational use for fire fighting and other emergency vehicles and

residents

(b) provide for two-way vehicular access between areas of fire risk and the nearest public road.


31 Olive orchards should be located and developed in a manner that minimises their potential to fuel

bushfires. Salinity 32 Development should not increase the potential for, or result in an increase in, soil and water salinity.

33 Preservation, maintenance and restoration of locally indigenous plant species should be encouraged in

areas affected by dry land salinity. 34 Irrigated horticulture and pasture should not increase groundwater-induced salinity.

Acid Sulfate Soils 35 Development and activities, including excavation and filling of land, that may lead to the disturbance of

potential or actual acid sulfate soils (including land identified on the Overlay Maps –Development Constraints) should be avoided unless such disturbances are managed in a way that effectively avoids the potential for harm or damage to any of the following: (a) the marine and estuarine environment

(b) natural water bodies and wetlands

(c) agricultural or aquaculture activities

(d) buildings, structures and infrastructure

(e) public health.

36 Development, including primary production, aquaculture activities and infrastructure, should not proceed

unless it can be demonstrated that the risk of releasing acid water resulting from the disturbance of acid sulfate soils is minimal.

Site Contamination 37 Development, including land division, should not occur where site contamination has occurred unless the

site has been assessed and remediated as necessary to ensure that it is suitable and safe for the proposed use.

Containment of Chemical and Hazardous Materials 38 Hazardous materials should be stored and contained in a manner that minimises the risk to public health

and safety and the potential for water, land or air contamination. 39 Development that involves the storage and handling of hazardous materials should ensure that these are

contained in designated areas that are secure, readily accessible to emergency vehicles, impervious, protected from rain and stormwater intrusion and other measures necessary to prevent:

(a) discharge of polluted water from the site

(b) contamination of land

(c) airborne migration of pollutants

(d) potential interface impacts with sensitive land uses.


Landslip 40 Development, including associated cut and fill activities, should not lead to an increased danger from land

surface instability or to the potential of landslip occurring on the site or on surrounding land.

41 Development on steep slopes should promote the retention and replanting of vegetation as a means of stabilising and reducing the possibility of surface movement or disturbance.

42 Development in areas susceptible to landslip should:

(a) incorporate split level designs to minimise cutting into the slope

(b) ensure that cut and fill and heights of faces are minimised

(c) ensure cut and fill is supported with engineered retaining walls or are battered to appropriate grades

(d) control any erosion that will increase the gradient of the slope and decrease stability

(e) ensure the siting and operation of an effluent drainage field does not contribute to landslip

(f) provide drainage measures to ensure surface stability is not compromised

(g) ensure natural drainage lines are not obstructed.



Attachment B

Attachment B


Interface Between Land Uses

OBJECTIVES

1 Development located and designed to minimise adverse impact and conflict between land uses.

2 Protect community health and amenity from adverse impacts of development.

3 Protect desired land uses from the encroachment of incompatible development. PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1 Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable

interference through any of the following:

(a) the emission of effluent, odour, smoke, fumes, dust or other airborne pollutants

(b) noise

(c) vibration

(d) electrical interference

(e) light spill

(f) glare

(g) hours of operation

(h) traffic impacts.

2 Development should be sited and designed to minimise negative impacts on existing and potential future land uses desired in the locality.

3 Development adjacent to a Residential Zone or residential area within a Township Zone should be designed to minimise overlooking and overshadowing of adjacent dwellings and private open space.

4 Residential development adjacent to non-residential zones and land uses should be located, designed

and/or sited to protect residents from potential adverse impacts from non-residential activities.

5 Sensitive uses likely to conflict with the continuation of lawfully existing developments and land uses desired for the zone should be designed to minimise negative impacts.

6 Non-residential development on land abutting a residential zone should be designed to minimise noise

impacts to achieve adequate levels of compatibility between existing and proposed uses.

Noise Generating Activities

7 Development that emits noise (other than music noise) should include noise attenuation measures that achieve the relevant Environment Protection (Noise) Policy criteria when assessed at the nearest existing noise sensitive premises.


8 Development with the potential to emit significant noise (e.g. industry) should incorporate noise attenuation measures that prevent noise from causing unreasonable interference with the amenity of noise sensitive premises.

9 Outdoor areas (such as beer gardens or dining areas) associated with licensed premises should be

designed or sited to minimise adverse noise impacts on adjacent existing or future noise sensitive development.

10 Development proposing music should include noise attenuation measures that achieve the following

desired noise levels:

Noise level assessment location Desired noise level

Adjacent existing noise sensitive development property boundary

Less than 8 dB above the level of background noise (L90, 15min) in any octave band of the sound spectrum

and

Less than 5 dB(A) above the level of background noise (LA90,15min) for the overall (sum of all octave bands) A-weighted level

Adjacent land property boundary

Less than 65 dB (Lin) at 63Hz and 70 dB(Lin) in all other octave bands of the sound spectrum

and

Less than 8 dB above the level of background noise (L90,15min) in any octave band of the sound spectrum and 5 dB(A) overall (sum of all octave bands) A-weighted level

11 Noise and vibration sensitive development located within 180 metres of a rail corridor should be sited, designed and constructed to minimise noise and vibration impacts from the operation of that rail line.

Air Quality

12 Development with the potential to emit harmful or nuisance-generating air pollution should incorporate air pollution control measures to prevent harm to human health or unreasonable interference with the amenity of sensitive uses within the locality.

13 Chimneys or exhaust flues associated with commercial development (including cafes, restaurants and fast food outlets) should be designed to ensure they do not cause a nuisance or health concerns to nearby sensitive receivers by:

(a) incorporating appropriate treatment technology before exhaust emissions are released

to the atmosphere

(b) ensuring that the location and design of chimneys or exhaust flues maximises dispersion and takes into account the location of nearby sensitive uses.


Rural Interface

14 The potential for adverse impacts resulting from rural development should be minimised by: (a) not locating horticulture or intensive animal keeping on land adjacent to townships

(b) maintaining an adequate separation between horticulture or intensive animal

keeping and townships, other sensitive uses and, where desirable, other forms of primary production.

15 Traffic movement, spray drift, dust, noise, odour and the use of frost fans and gas guns

associated with primary production should not lead to unreasonable impact on adjacent land uses.

16 Existing primary production and mineral extraction should not be prejudiced by the inappropriate encroachment of sensitive uses such as urban development.

17 Development that is adjacent to land used for primary production (within either the zone

or adjacent zones) should include appropriate setbacks and vegetative plantings designed to minimise the potential impacts of chemical spray drift and other impacts associated with primary production.

18 New urban development should provide a buffer of at least 40 metres wide (inclusive of

any fuel break, emergency vehicle access or road) separating urban and rural activities.

19 Development located within 300 metres of facilities for the handling, transportation and storage of bulk commodities should:

(a) not prejudice the continued operation of those facilities (b) be located, designed and developed having regard to the potential environmental impact arising from

the operation of such facilities and the potential extended hours of operation.

20 Open field horticulture involving regular chemical spraying should not be located within:

(a) 100 metres from the nearest surface water (whether permanent or intermittent)

(b) 100 metres of land based aquaculture and associated components (c) 300 metres of a defined and zoned township, settlement or urban area (d) 300 metres from a shop, office, public institution, or other building designed primarily for human

occupation (e) 50 metres of native vegetation of an area greater than 5 hectares.

21 New primary production development (including open field and enclosed horticulture) should be sited

to ensure that the new land use does not detrimentally impact upon established primary production uses by way of its normal day-to-day activities (including chemical spraying).



Attachment C

Attachment C



Refer to the Map Reference Tables for a list of the maps that relate to this zone. OBJECTIVES

1 A mixed use employment zone that accommodates a range of industrial land uses together with

other related employment and business activities that generate wealth and employment for the State.

2 Local activity centres, which include a range of activities including shops, consulting rooms, personal service establishments, child care and training facilities that provide support services for businesses and an expanding workforce.

3 Provision for large floor plate enterprises, such as major logistics and manufacturing plants, high

technology and/or research and development related uses, located to take advantage of existing and future road and rail infrastructure.

4 The effective location and management of activities at the interface of industrial/commercial

activity with land uses that are sensitive to these operations.

5 A high standard of development which promotes distinctive building, landscape and streetscape design, with high visual and environmental amenity, particularly along arterial roads and the boundaries of adjoining zones.

6 Development that promotes business clusters that provide a range of economic and

environmental benefits and have a focus on food processing, packing and manufacturing.

7 Coordinated and integrated development that: (a) incorporates high speed information technology and telecommunications facilities and

infrastructure

(b) contributes to the improvement of the physical, social and economic conditions of adjoining communities where appropriate.

8 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. DESIRED CHARACTER

This zone provides for the establishment of business clusters that create opportunities for innovation, start up and the growth of new businesses. Desirable land uses include a wide range of activities that generate employment, focusing on industry and similar activities such as value-add food processing and manufacturing and produce processing, washing and packing that support the growth of irrigated horticulture and agriculture across the district, without detrimentally impacting upon existing industry zones. Opportunities for the co-location of businesses should be pursued to provide for the growth of like


allied industries and ensure the efficient and effective delivery of infrastructure. Allotments that adjoin the boundary of another zone where more sensitive land uses are anticipated (e.g. residential development), will be large enough to accommodate design features and siting arrangements that limit impact on the adjoining zone. Buildings will provide a variation in materials, façade treatments and setbacks rather than appearing as large uniform buildings with blank facades. Outdoor storage areas will also be screened with fencing/structures of varied materials that limit potential for vandalism. Development should be designed in a manner which encourages innovation and energy efficiency through the use on-site power generation, battery storage and smart energy management systems.

Landscaping will be carefully integrated with built form, ensuring that vegetation is sustainable, drought tolerant, locally indigenous and matched to the scale of development, while also providing a comfortable, pleasant and attractive environment and carefully designed to minimise opportunity for crime by ensuring passive/active surveillance and minimising places of entrapment. The extent of native vegetation in the zone is limited and its retention, whether in areas or as scattered trees, is a high priority. Where practical, the existing native vegetation will be incorporated into a development design. Car parking areas will include trees to provide shade and enhance visual amenity and the appearance of outdoor storage areas will be enhanced through landscaping. Portions of the zone are subject to inundation by floodwaters from the Gawler River and Light River. It is expected that new development will not increase the potential for blockage of floodwaters or alter flow paths, will not remove areas of flood storage (through filling etc) and thereby impact on localised levels and flow paths and will not increase impervious areas thereby increasing volume and peak runoff levels. Buildings and structures will be located and designed to prevent entry by floodwaters.


Land Use


▪ consulting room ▪ electricity substation ▪ fuel depot ▪ indoor recreation centre ▪ industry (other than special industry) ▪ motor repair station ▪ office ▪ petrol filling station ▪ prescribed mains ▪ public service depot ▪ road transport terminal ▪ service trade premises ▪ service industry ▪ shop or group of shops ▪ training facility ▪ store ▪ warehouse.



3 Development should not impede the operation of established land uses through encroachment, over

development of sites or noise/emissions or any other harmful or nuisance-creating impact.

4 Shops or groups of shops (other than bulky good outlets and service trade premises) should serve the local workforce within the zone and have a gross leasable floor area less than 250 square metres.

5 Bulky goods outlets and service trade premises should not have any adverse impacts on heavy vehicle

access or freight movements.

6 Restaurants and cafes should only be located in bulky goods outlets or service trade premises that are larger than 2000 square metres, and should have a gross leasable space in the order of 150 square metres or less.

7 Short term workers accommodation or other sensitive uses within the zone should be designed and

located to ensure the ongoing operation of any existing activity within the zone is not impeded.

8 Dwellings or residential flat buildings should not be located in the zone.

9 Development in the form of intensive enclosed production (e.g. greenhouses), horticulture or intensive animal keeping should not be located in the zone.

Form and Character

10 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone.

11 In areas where a uniform street setback pattern has not been established, buildings should be set back in accordance with the following parameters:

Building height (metres) Minimum setback from the primary road frontage

(metres)

Minimum setback from the secondary road frontage (metres)

6 metres

8

3

Greater than 6 10 3

12 Any plant or equipment with potential to cause an environmental nuisance (including a chimney

stack or air-conditioning plant) should be sited as far as possible from adjoining allotments not zoned for employment, and should be designed to minimise its effect on the amenity of the locality.

13 Development should control noise emissions through the use of attenuation devices and sound

proofing, particularly activities requiring extended hours of operation.

14 The hours of operation of an activity should not detract from the amenity of any residential area.

15 Within 50 metres of a residential zone boundary:

(a) non-residential development (including loading and unloading activities) should:


(i) demonstrate appropriate acoustic performance

(ii) ensure that all noise sources including machinery, loading,

unloading and other service areas on allotments nearest to the residential boundary are located within the building

(b) development should be designed and constructed of a material to ensure noise emissions are minimised within acceptable standards.

16 Development should be adaptable to allow for flexibility of use over time and accommodate

multiple uses and shared facilities where practical, including training areas and car parking.

17 Buildings should not occupy more than 50 percent of the total area of the site upon which they are located, unless it can be demonstrated that stormwater can be harvested, treated, stored and reused on the site of the development to minimise impacts on external stormwater infrastructure.

18 For labour intensive industries where car parking demand exceeds the rates in Table Mal/1 –

Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements, the total car parking should be provided at a rate of 0.75 spaces by the number of employees.

19 For non-labour intensive industries, the rates in Table Mal/1 – Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements

can be varied having regard to the expected maximum staff and visitor levels.

20 Development should include a landscape buffer measuring at least 20 metres in width where fronting Port Wakefield Road.

21 Direct vehicular access to Port Wakefield Road should not occur.

Land Division


(a) create allotments that are of a size and shape suitable for the intended use

(b) be in accordance with the following parameters (except where intended for a specific purpose consistent with the zone provisions and for which a lesser site area requirement can be demonstrated):

Parameter Minimum value

Allotment size 4,000 square metres

Frontage width to a public road 30 metres


PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Complying Development

Complying developments are prescribed in Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations 2008.

Non-complying Development Development (including building work, a change in the use of land, or division of an allotment) involving any of the following is non-complying:

Form of Development Exceptions

Advertisement or advertising hoarding Except where the advertisement or advertising hoarding:

(a) does not move, rotate or incorporate flashing light(s) (b) has no part that projects above the wall or fascia where

attached to a building (c) covers less than 10 per cent of the total surface area of a

wall oriented to a public road or reserve (d) does not include bunting, streamers, flags or wind vanes

Amusement machine centre

Caravan or residential park

Concrete batching plant

Dwelling Except for:

(a) short term workers accommodation that is ancillary to and in association with industry

(b) alterations and additions to existing dwellings Intensive animal keeping

Motel

Nursing home

Place of worship

Prescribed mining operations

Primary school

Residential flat building

Secondary school

Special industry

Stadium

Tourist accommodation

Waste or recycling depot

Wrecking yard


Public Notification

Categories of public notification are prescribed in Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008.

In addition, the following forms of development, or any combination thereof (except where the development is classified as non-complying), are designated:

Category 1 Category 2

All kinds of development except where the site of the proposed development is located within 60 metres of a Residential Zone or a Suburban Neighbourhood Zone boundary

Development where the site of the proposed development is located within 60 metres of a Residential Zone or a Suburban Neighbourhood Zone boundary



Attachment D

Attachment D


Animal Husbandry

12 Horticulture within structures (eg shade houses, glass houses, green houses, plastic houses)

should not be developed in the Gawler River Flood Plain as shown on the relevant Overlay Maps ‐

Development Constraints and should only occur where all of the following are satisfied:

(a) the total floor area of such structures on an allotment does not exceed 300 square metres in

area

(b) the produce grown is for the personal use of residents on the subject land and not for

commercial production and sale unless in accordance with the carrying on of a home activity

(c) a permanently occupied residence is located on the subject land

(d) the structures are setback in accordance with the following table:

Location Setback distance (metres)

Primary road frontage 20 metres or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling whichever is the greater

Side road boundary 8 metres plus 1 additional metres for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres vertical wall height measured from natural ground level

Allotment side boundary 5 metres plus 1 additional metre for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres vertical wall height measured from natural ground level

Rear boundary 12 metres

(e) fumigation within the structures does not take place

(f) the external appearance of the structure(s) and the materials used are of a high standard and

will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality.



Attachment E

Attachment E




Development (including building work, a change in the use of land or division of an allotment) for the following is non-complying:


Advertisement and/or advertising hoarding

Except where (a) and (b) are satisfied: (a) it is less than 2 metres in height (b) it has no more than 3 square metres total advertisement area both

sides inclusive.


Building or structure within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

Except where it achieves one of following: (a) it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation

or flood management purposes; (b) it is located on land within the Low or Medium Flood Hazard Risk

Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints and achieves the following: (i) the finished floor level of the building or structure is raised to a

level at least 300 millimetres above the Australian Height Datum (AHD) height of a 1-in-100 year average recurrence interval flood event or the known flood level, whichever is the greater;

(ii) the total floor area of buildings or structures measures less than 25 percent of the area of the allotment;

(c) it involves the construction of an open sided structure.

Bus depot/ station

Caravan park

Consulting room Except a veterinary consulting room located outside of the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Crematorium

Dairy

Dwelling

Except a detached dwelling and/or group dwelling which: (a) is not located within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown

on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints (b) does not require access to a dwelling by road across land within the

High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Fence within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Except where (a) or (b) is satisfied: (a) it is located within the Low Flood Hazard Risk Area and:

(i) the fencing maintains a mesh size greater than 100 millimetres between ground level and 300 millimetres; or

(ii) the fence is located within 10 metres of a dwelling or other building.

(b) it is located within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas and: (i) it is a post and wire fence with a mesh size greater than 100

millimetres; or (ii) the fence is located within 10 metres of a dwelling or other

building. Filling and/or excavation of land within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Except where it is a direct consequence of and is necessary for building work or where it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes.

Fuel Depot

Hospital

Horse keeping within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay



Maps – Development Constraints

Hotel

Industry Excluding a light industry in the form of a cottage industry / home business

Intensive animal keeping Except for the keeping of dogs and kennels not located within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Land Division

Except where (a) or (b) is satisfied: (a) the land division is required for facilitating the provision of public

infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes; (b) the land division results in:

(i) the creation of an allotment or allotments of 40 hectares or more in size wholly located within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

(ii) in all other cases, results in the creation of an allotment or allotments of 1 hectare or more

Motel

Motor Repair Station

Motor racing or testing venue

Office Except an office in association with a home based industry or activity

Outbuilding

Except where all of the following are satisfied: (a) it has a total building height less than 6.5 metres; (b) the total floor area of kennels, animal pens, sheds, stables, garages and

other outbuildings on the allotment does not cover more than 25 per cent of the total area of the allotment.

Parking or storage of a vehicle exceeding 9 tonnes unladen weight Except where it is for a horse float or farm vehicle

Petrol filling station

Primary school

Public service depot

Residential park


Service trade premises

Shop or group of shops Except where the gross leasable area is 80 square metres or less

Stock sales yard

Stock slaughter works

Store



Supported accommodation

Warehouse

Waste reception, storage, treatment or disposal

Wrecking yard



Attachment F

Attachment F



Refer to the Map Reference Tables for a list of the maps that relate to this zone. OBJECTIVES

1 The long term continuation of primary production.

2 Economically productive, efficient and environmentally sustainable primary production.

3 Allotments of a size and configuration that promote the efficient use of land for primary

production.

4 Protection of primary production from encroachment by incompatible land uses and protection of scenic qualities or rural landscapes.

5 Accommodation of wind farms and ancillary development.

6 Protection of rural support infrastructure for the bulk handling, storage and transportation of farm

commodities situated at Long Plains and Adelaide Road (south west of the Mallala Township).

7 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. DESIRED CHARACTER

This zone covers the majority of the council area, excluding the townships and several special zones. Farming activities are characterised by irrigated horticulture to the south of the council area and livestock grazing and cereal cropping in other areas which are generally farmed on relatively large land holdings. Other land uses include intensive animal keeping, rural value adding, the livestock markets, bulk grain storage, a major landfill, composting, and bulk grain storage. This zone will continue to accommodate grazing, cropping and intensive animal keeping and actively encourage the growth of intensive horticultural development, including glasshouse and greenhouse development and associated value adding where able to readily access suitable fit-for-purpose water. This zone will also accommodate the development of abattoirs, meat processing, cold storage, and other forms of compatible development, which contribute to agricultural productivity and the rural character and are located outside of land subject to flooding. A proliferation of intensive development and occupation of the zone by incompatible land uses may threaten its proper functioning and render the rural landscape susceptible to competing demands and undesirable change. To maintain the agricultural importance and stability of the zone, it is vital that the size of the land holdings is not significantly reduced, or dwelling densities increased, and that future pressures for development in the zone will not result in the conversion of agricultural land to less productive uses. The zone abuts the townships of Two Wells, Mallala, and Dublin, and encircles the settlements of Windsor and Redbanks and it is important that farming activities including chemical spraying are managed to minimise impacts on those townships and settlements. Rural-based activities will continue to operate and expand, provided sound management techniques


can be demonstrated, and the long-term productivity of the land is ensured. Opportunities for the diversification of the rural sector will be expanded and developed in appropriate locations. Value-adding industries will be developed to complement and expand upon the existing rural activities within the region. Although some of the land has long been cleared for agricultural production and grazing, significant tracts of native and other significant vegetation still remain. The small areas of bushland scattered throughout the district, notably those located on sand ridges in the eastern portion of the zone and the landscapes abutting and adjacent to the banks of the Light River and Gawler River, are particularly important features needing protection. These features will be preserved and further enhanced by supplementary planting.

Wind farms and ancillary development such as substations, maintenance sheds, access roads and connecting power-lines (including to the National Electricity Grid) are envisaged within the zone and constitute a component of the zone's desired character.


Land Use


bulk handling and storage facility commercial forestry dairy farming farming horticulture intensive animal keeping tourist accommodation (including through the diversification of existing farming activities and

conversion of farm buildings) wind farms and ancillary development wind monitoring mast and ancillary development


3 Industry and warehousing should only be developed if it supports primary production, processing, storage

and distribution of local primary produce or products produced on the same site, and should be developed where:

(a) it has a direct relationship with primary production

(b) it is unlikely to limit or inhibit the use of adjoining land for primary production

(c) the particular use requires a site in proximity to a particular natural resource or other product or

materials sourced from the locality

(d) it will not result in the alienation of land or water resources identified as significant for primary production or ecological reasons

(e) the use would be inappropriate within a township.

4 Wind farms and ancillary development should be located in areas which provide opportunity for harvesting

of wind and efficient generation of electricity and may therefore be sited:

(a) in visually prominent locations

(b) closer to roads than envisaged by generic setback policy


5 A dwelling should only be developed if:

(a) there is an existing demonstrated connection with farming or other primary production on the

allotment

(b) the location of the dwelling will not inhibit the continuation of farming, other primary production or other development that is in keeping with the provisions of the zone

(c) it is located more than:

(i) 500 metres from an existing intensive animal keeping operation unless used in association with that activity

(ii) 300 metres from a bulk handling facility

(d) it does not result in more than one dwelling per allotment

(e) it is setback at least 40 metres from allotment boundaries.

6 Tourist accommodation should not be:

(a) converted to dwellings and should be designed to preclude the conversion of buildings into dwellings such as through shared facilities, common utility services, grouped accommodation and/or shared parking

(b) located within 300 metres from a bulk handling facility.

7 A shop should be: (a) ancillary to primary production or processing uses or tourist accommodation or other tourist

development

(b) located on the same site as the primary use.

8 Stock slaughter works should only occur where the site:

(a) is located in reasonable proximity to the stock saleyards near Dublin

(b) is located a minimum distance of 2 kilometres from any township, settlement or Deferred Urban

Zone

(c) is located not less than 500 metres from a rural dwelling not associated with the development

(d) is setback at least 200 metres from a public road

(e) is not located on land affected by flooding from the Light or Gawler Rivers

(f) is on an allotment with frontage to a sealed road having close and safe access to an arterial road

(g) can be provided with the required physical infrastructure, including water supply, power and effluent treatment.

9 Non-agricultural related development should be limited to maximise farm and horticultural productivity.

10 On-site energy generation associated with an existing land use occurring on the site is encouraged.


Form and Character

11 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone.

12 Development should not occur within 500 metres of a national park, conservation park, wilderness protection area or significant stands of native vegetation if it will increase the potential for, or result in, the spread of pest plants.

13 Building development should be located, designed and sufficiently elevated having regard to the flood

potential of the land, particularly when located in proximity to the Light River and Gawler River.

14 Development should provide an access way of at least 3 metres wide that provides access for emergency vehicles to the rear of the allotment.

15 Buildings should primarily be limited to farm, horticulture and animal keeping buildings, a detached

dwelling associated with primary production on the allotment and residential outbuildings that are:

(a) grouped together on the allotment and setback from allotment boundaries to minimise the visual impact of buildings on the landscape as viewed from public roads

(b) screened from public roads and adjacent land by existing vegetation or landscaped buffers.

16 Sheds, garages and outbuildings should be setback from allotment boundaries in accordance with the following:

Parameter Value

Minimum setback from a primary road boundary where the floor area is 54 square metres or less and/or the vertical wall height measures no more than 2.7 metres

For an outbuilding and shed: 15 metres or the same distance of the existing associated dwelling (whichever is the greater)

For a garage attached to a dwelling: behind any part of the building line of the dwelling to which it is ancillary that faces the principal street

Minimum setback from a primary road boundary where the floor area is greater than 54 square metres and/or the vertical wall height exceeds 2.7 metres

35 metres or the same distance of the existing associated dwelling (whichever is the greater)

Minimum setback from a secondary road boundary

8 metres plus 3 metres for every additional 500 millimetres above 2.7 metres of wall height measured from the natural ground level

Minimum setback from side boundary

8 metres plus 1 metre for every additional 500 millimetres above 2.7 metres of wall height measured from the natural ground level

Minimum setback from rear boundary

12 metres

17 Not more than one dwelling should be erected on any allotment of less than 80 hectares unless:

(a) the additional dwelling is to be located on an operating farm


(b) it is necessary for the accommodation of a person such as a manager, worker or a relative who is in full time employment on the farm

(c) it is located in reasonable proximity to the existing dwelling and connected to the same services as the existing dwelling; and

(d) a separate allotment is not required.

Land Division 18 Land division, including boundary realignment, should only occur where at least one of the following

applies:

(a) it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation

(b) it will promote economically productive, efficient and sustainable primary production

19 Land division is appropriate within Horticulture Policy Area 3 only when all of the following are achieved:


(b) it will not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas as shown on Overlap Maps – Development Constraints

(c) it is serviced with guaranteed water supply of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a genuinely

commercial horticultural development.

(d) it results in no material adverse impacts on downstream property owners, in terms of water flow and discharge of pollutants.

20 Land division is appropriate outside of Horticultural Policy Area 3 only when all of the following are

achieved:


(b) it will not result in any additional allotments created wholly within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas as shown on Overlap Maps – Development Constraints.

Horticulture Policy Area 3

Refer to the Map Reference Table for a list of the maps that relate to this policy area.

OBJECTIVES 1 A policy area primarily for horticulture. 2 The establishment of appropriately scaled industries for washing, processing and packaging primary

produce, and servicing and supporting horticulture. 3 Development that contributes to the desired character of the policy area.


DESIRED CHARACTER

A threat to the long-term economic viability of the policy area is the conversion of horticultural land to residential/rural living activities. These activities are incompatible with horticulture production (e.g. due to noise, spray drift etc.) and often raise the cost of production for those remaining. Land division will only occur where the allotment is serviced with a guaranteed water supply of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a genuinely commercial horticultural development. Dwellings within the policy area will only occur if they are associated with sufficient buffers (landscape and/or separation distances) from existing or future intensive horticulture and the dwellings are directly associated with an existing demonstrated connection with a commercial horticultural activity.

To realise the area’s full potential for horticulture development will require the provision of adequate water supply, the development of sealed road linkages, plus adequate power supply. Portions of the zone are subject to inundation by floodwaters from the Gawler River and Light River. New development will not materially increase the potential for on and off-site flooding. Buildings and structures will be located and designed to have regard to flooding. The zone will be developed in a way that minimises potential amenity impacts on sensitive land uses.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL Land Use

1. The following forms of development are envisaged in the policy area:

farming horticulture light industry and service industry associated with the processing, packaging and distribution of

produce small-scale tourist development in association with wineries, farms and local heritage places wind farm and ancillary development wind monitoring mast and ancillary development.

2 Retail sales of goods produced and processed within the policy area are appropriate providing

such sales remain ancillary and incidental to the principal horticultural, farming or processing use of the land.

Form and Character 3. Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the

zone and the policy area. 4 The keeping of dogs and the erection of kennels should not be undertaken unless:

(a) dog keeping yards, kennels and associated exercise areas are more than 10 metres from any boundary of the site and 100 metres from the nearest dwelling and outside the site

(b) dogs are kept for the private enjoyment of the land owner or for breeding, training or showing and do not exceed 5 dogs in number


(c) kennels are fully insulated with appropriate materials to all roofing and walls, and with openings orientated to minimise noise impact nuisance to residential use

(d) no nuisance such as from noise, dust or odour is likely to be created

(e) the site is screened by perimeter landscaping

(f) an adequate exercise area is provided

(g) all yards are fenced and provided with secure gates. 5 No more than 2 horses should be kept on an allotment, provided that a properly designed and

constructed stable and attached day yard is located on the land to accommodate each horse. 6 Stables should be setback:

(a) 50 metres from the nearest dwelling outside the site

(b) 15 metres from the principal road boundary or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling, whichever is the greater

(c) 10 metres setback from side road boundary and side boundaries

(d) 10 metres setback from rear boundary.

7 No new loam pits should be opened in the area adjoining the Gawler River and further loam extraction should be contained within existing pits.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Complying Development

Complying developments are prescribed in Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations 2008. In addition, except for development sited on an allotment containing a place identified in Table Mal/2 – State Heritage Places, the following forms of development are designated as complying subject to the conditions contained in the table below: Form of Development Conditions for complying development

Horticulture (including intensive production in an enclosed, artificial environment) within Horticulture Policy Area 3

Provided: (a) the development does not incorporate a building or structure located

within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

(b) where the proposal includes the construction of greenhouse / glasshouse structures that are not greater than 20,000 square metres in gross leasable area.

(c) the development proposal is accompanied by a report, design and management plan prepared by a suitably qualified engineer which demonstrates that both stormwater and wastewater will be entirely managed on-site having regard to predicted flooding (refer to Development Constraints Overlay Maps) and existing infrastructure capacity.


(d) where the development includes potential noise sources (e.g. audible bird scaring devices, frost fans, generators, fans) the application is accompanied by a report, design and management plan prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer which demonstrates that the development will meet EPA environmental noise policies.

(e) any proposed buildings and structures are located at a distance greater than 100 metres from any habitable building not associated with the use of the land.

(f) development has direct vehicle access from an all-weather public road to the reasonable satisfaction of the planning authority.

(g) all buildings are set back at least 40 metres from the development’s allotment boundaries.

(h) the development does not involve the growing of olives.

Non-complying Development Development (including building work, a change in the use of land, or division of an allotment) involving any of the following is non-complying:



Except where all of the following are satisfied: (a) it is less than 6 metres in height (b) it has no more than 8 square metres total advertisement area both

sides inclusive (c) it does not flash or move


Any form of development within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on the Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

Except for: (a) buildings, structures or earthworks required as part of flood

protection works associated with a regional flood mitigation scheme (b) farming (c) horticulture other than intensive production in an enclosed, artificial

environment (d) recreation area

Bus depot

Bus station

Caravan park

Community Centre

Consulting room Except a veterinary consulting room where located within the Low Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Defence establishment

Dog track

Dwelling

Except a detached dwelling where it achieves the following: (a) it is not located within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown

on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; and

(b) it does not require access to it by road across land within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; and


(c) within Horticulture Policy Area 3, it is on an allotment of at least 8 hectares in area; or

(d) outside of Horticulture Policy Area 3, it satisfies (a) and (b)







building. Filling and/or excavation of land within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints


Fuel Depot

Horticulture involving the growing of olives

Except where the location for the growing of olives achieves (a), (b) or (c): (a) at least 500 metres from all of the following:

(i) a National Park (ii) a Conservation Park (iii) a Wilderness Protection Area (iv) the edge of a substantially intact stratum of native vegetation

greater than 5 hectares in area (b) 50 metres from the edge of a substantially intact stratum of native

vegetation 5 hectares or less in area (c) At least 500 metres from either of the following zones:

(i) Coastal Conservation Zone (ii) Conservation Zone

Hospital

Hotel

Indoor recreation centre

Intensive animal keeping

Except where (a) and (b) are satisfied: (a) the land is located outside Horticulture Policy Area 3 (b) the land is located outside the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as

shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints Land Division Except where it achieves the following:

(a) the land division will not result in an increase in the number of allotments wholly within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; and

(b) the land division is required to facilitate the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes; or

(c) all allotments resulting from the division have an area of at least 8 hectares within Horticulture Policy Area 3; or

(d) all allotments resulting from the division have an area of at least 40 hectares where located outside of Horticulture Policy Area 3

Motel




Nursing home

Office

Except where it is ancillary to and in association with primary production or tourism and it achieves all of the following:

(a) it is located outside of land identified as being subject to the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas

(b) it has a gross leasable floor area of 50 square metres of less


Place of worship

Prescribed mining operations Except where located more than 250 metres from the centre line of the Gawler River or Light River

Pre-school

Primary school

Racecourse


Residential park

Road Transport Terminal


Shop or group of shops

Except where is achieves all of the following: (a) it is located outside of land identified as being subject to the Medium

or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas; (b) it is ancillary to and in association with primary production (including

a winery) (c) it has a gross leasable area of 80 square metres or less

Special Industry Except where it is an organic waste processing facility located outside Horticulture Policy Area 3 and all of the following are satisfied:

(a) an impervious leachate barrier is provided between the operational areas and the underlying soil and groundwater on a site that is wholly or partially within a water protection area

(b) the operation is located on a site with ground slopes no greater than 6 per cent

(c) the operation is located a minimum distance of 100 metres from any dam, river, creek, natural watercourse, channel or bore

(d) the operation is not located on land subject to a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event, or on land located within 100 metres of the identified as being subject to flooding in a 1-in-100 year average return interval event

(e) the operation is located on land with a depth to subsurface seasonal tidal or permanent groundwater of 2 metres or greater

(f) the land to be used for the operation satisfies at least one of the following: (i) is located at least a distance of 500 metres from the nearest

sensitive receptor (ii) the operation employs an in-vessel or fully enclosed

composting system where a lesser distance to the nearest sensitive receptor may be appropriate.


Stadium

Store Except where ancillary to and associated with an envisaged land use of the zone


Warehouse Except where ancillary to and associated with an envisaged land use of the zone


Except where it is an organic waste processing facility located outside of Horticulture Policy Area 3 and all of the following are satisfied:

(a) an impervious leachate barrier is provided between the operational areas and the underlying soil and groundwater on a site that is wholly or partially within a water protection area

(b) the operation is located on a site with ground slopes no greater than 6 per cent

(c) the operation is located a minimum distance of 100 metres from any dam, river, creek, natural watercourse, channel or bore

(d) the operation is not located on land subject to a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event, or on land located within 100 metres of the identified as being subject to flooding in a 1-in-100 year average return interval event

(e) the operation is located on land with a depth to subsurface seasonal tidal or permanent groundwater of 2 metres or greater

(f) the land to be used for the operation satisfies at least one of the following: (i) is located at least a distance of 500 metres from the nearest

sensitive receptor (ii) the operation employs an in-vessel or fully enclosed

composting system where a lesser distance to the nearest sensitive receptor may be appropriate.

Wrecking yard

Public Notification

Categories of public notification are prescribed in Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008.

In addition, the following forms of development, or any combination thereof (except where the development is classified as non-complying), are designated:

Category 1 Category 2

Commercial Forestry except where located within Horticulture Policy Area 3.

Bulk handling facility except where located within Horticulture Policy Area 3.

Farming Tourist accommodation

Horticulture (excluding the growing of olives) where all of the following are satisfied:

(a) no dam, audible bird scaring device or frost fan will be used

(b) no planting is proposed within 300 metres of a dwelling unrelated to use of the subject land

(c) no removal of significant vegetation is proposed (d) the following separation distances are

maintained between production (cultivated)

Horticulture (excluding the growing of olives) except where it is assigned Category 1.


areas which will be subject to regular chemical spraying and a sensitive receptor not associated with the horticulture development:

(i) 100 metres from land based aquaculture

(ii) 300 metres from a dwelling unrelated to the use of the subject land, or other sensitive land uses.

Wind farms and ancillary development such as substations, maintenance sheds, access roads and connecting power-lines (including to the National Electricity Grid) where the base of all wind turbines is located at least 2000 metres from:

(a) an existing dwelling or tourist accommodation that is not associated with the wind farm

(b) a proposed dwelling or tourist accommodation for which an operable development plan consent exists

(c) the boundaries of any Airfield, Airport, Centre, Community, Fringe, Historic Conservation, Home Industry, Living, Mixed Use, Residential, Settlement, Tourist, Township or Urban Zone, Policy Area 3 or Precinct or any Heritage Area (including within the area of an adjoining Development Plan).

Horse keeping, including stables, involving a maximum of 2 horses on an allotment and where any associated stables are setback:

(a) 50 metres from the nearest dwelling outside the zone

(b) 15 metres from the principal road boundary or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling, whichever is the greater

(c) 10 metres from a secondary road frontage (d) 10 metres from side and rear boundaries

Wind monitoring mast and ancillary development

Light Industry and service industry which involves the processing, packaging and distribution of produce associated with the use of the subject land

Light Industry and service industry which involves the processing, packaging and distribution of produce when not associated with the use of the subject land



Attachment G

Attachment G


Residential

9 Sheds, garages and similar outbuildings should be designed within the following parameters:

Parameter Value

Maximum floor area 80 square metres

Maximum building height (measured from natural ground level)

6.5 metres

Maximum vertical wall height (measured from natural ground level)

4.2 metres

Minimum setback from side and rear boundaries

1 metre plus 1 metre for each additional 500 millimetres above 2.7 metres of vertical wall height measured from natural ground level

Minimum setback from a primary road boundary the floor area is 54 square metres or less and/or the vertical wall height measures no more than 2.7 metres

For an outbuilding and shed:10 metres or the same distance of the existing associated dwelling (whichever is the greater)

For a garage attached to a dwelling: behind any part of the building line of the dwelling to which it is ancillary that faces the principal street

Minimum setback from a primary road boundary where the floor area is greater than 54 square metres and/or the vertical wall exceeds 2.7 metres

15 metres or the same distance of the existing associated dwelling (whichever is the greater)

Minimum setback from a secondary road boundary

3 metres plus 1 metre for every additional 500 millimetres above 2.7 metres of wall height measured from the natural ground level



Attachment H

Attachment H


Residential Zone






sides inclusive. (c) it does not flash or move


Auction room

Building or structure within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

Except where it achieves one of following:

(a) it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes;

(b) it is located on land within the Low or Medium Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints and the finished floor level of the building or structure is raised to a level at least 300 millimetres above the Australian Height Datum (AHD) height of a 1-in-100 year average recurrence interval flood event or the known flood level, whichever is the greater;

(c) it involves the construction of an open sided structure

Bus depot

Bus station

Cemetery

Consulting room

Except where: (a) the total floor area is 150 square metres or less (b) in Residential Policy Area 4 and Residential Policy Area 6 the

total floor area is 80 square metres or less (c) the site does not front an arterial road.

Crematorium

Dairy

Dog track

Electricity substation

Entertainment venue

Farming







building.


Residential Zone

Filling and/or excavation of land within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints


Fuel Depot

Horse keeping

Horticulture

Hospital

Hotel

Indoor recreation centre

Industry


Land Division creating an allotment or allotments of less than 40 hectares in size wholly located within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Except where it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes.


Office

Except where: (a) the total floor area is less than 50 square metres (b) in Residential Policy Area 4 the total floor area is less than 80 square

metres (c) the site does not front an arterial road (d) in conjunction with a residential use of land.


Public service depot Except where located on the site of an existing Council public service depot.

Radio or television station

Restaurant

Road transport terminal


Shop or group of shops

Stock sales yard


Store

Warehouse


Residential Zone


Except in Residential Policy Area 4 where development is associated with a Community Wastewater Management System/treatment plant and ancillary infrastructure or an on-site wastewater system associated with a residential dwelling.

Wrecking yard



Attachment I

Attachment I


Rural Living

8 All buildings associated with a home based industry/ office, sheds (except for stables, kennels and animal pens), garages and similar outbuildings should be designed within the following parameters:

Parameter Value

Maximum floor area 300 square metres

Maximum building height (from natural ground level) 6.5 metres

Maximum wall height (from natural ground level) 4.2 metres

Minimum setback from primary road boundary where the floor area is 36 square metres or less and/or the vertical wall height measures no more than 2.7 metres

15 metres or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling, whichever is greater

Minimum setback from primary road boundary where the floor area is greater than 36 square metres and/or the vertical wall height exceeds 2.7 metres

20 metres or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling, whichever is greater

Minimum setback from side road boundary 8 metres plus 3 additional metre for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres wall height measured from natural ground level

Minimum setback from side boundaries 5 metres plus 1 additional metre for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres wall height measured from natural ground level

Minimum setback from rear boundary 12 metres



Attachment J

Attachment J


Rural Living

17 Horticulture within structures (eg shade houses, glass houses, green houses, plastic houses)

should only occur where all of the following are satisfied:

(a) the total floor area of such structures on an allotment do not exceed 300 square metres in

area and limited to one such structure

(b) the produce grown is for the personal use of residents on the subject land and not for

commercial production and sale unless in accordance with the carrying on of a home

activity

(c) a permanently occupied residence is located on the subject land

(d) the structures are setback in accordance with the following table:

Location Setback distance of vehicle (metres)

Primary road frontage 20 metres or the same distance as the existing associated dwelling whichever is the greater

Side road boundary 8 metres plus 1 additional metre for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres wall height measured from natural ground level

Allotment side boundary 5 metres plus 1 additional metre for every additional 500 millimetres above the 2.7 metres wall height measured from natural ground level

Rear boundary 12 metres

(e) fumigation within the structures does not take place

(f) the external appearance of the structure(s) and the materials used are of a high standard

and will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality.



Attachment K

Attachment K


Rural Living Zone






sides inclusive. (c) it does not flash or move


Animal pen Except where all of the following are satisfied: (a) it measures less than 6.5 metres total building height (b) the total floor area of kennels, animal pens, sheds, stables, garages

and other outbuildings on the allotment does not cover more than 25 per cent of the area of the allotment

(c) it is not located in Precinct 3 Two Wells Building or structure within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps - Development Constraints

Except where it achieves one of following:

(a) it facilitates the provision of public infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes;

(b) it is located on land within the Low or Medium Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints and the finished floor level of the building or structure is raised to a level at least 300 millimetres above the Australian Height Datum (AHD) height of a 1-in-100 year average recurrence interval flood event or the known flood level, whichever is the greater;

(c) it involves the construction of an open sided structure

Bus depot / station

Caravan park

Consulting room

Crematorium

Dairy

Dwelling

Except a detached dwelling which: (a) is not located within the High Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown

on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; and (b) does not require access to it by road across land within the High

Flood Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; and

(c) will not result in more than one dwelling per allotment in Precinct 3 Two Wells

Educational Establishment within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints





(b) it is located within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas and:


Rural Living Zone

(i) it is a post and wire fence with a mesh size greater than 100 millimetres; or


Filling and/or excavation of land within any of the Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints


Fuel Depot

Hospital

Horse keeping within the High Flood

Hazard Risk Area, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints

Hotel

Industry Except a light industry in the form of a cottage industry/home business, where located outside of Precinct 3 Two Wells


Kennel

Except where all of the following are satisfied: (a) it has a total building height less than 6.5 metres (b) the total floor area of kennels, animal pens, sheds, stables, garages and

other outbuildings on the allotment does not cover more than 25 per cent of the total area of the allotment

(c) it is not located in Precinct 3 Two Wells Land Division Except where (a) or (b) are satisfied (outside of the settlements of Barabba

and Fischer): (a) the land division is required for facilitating the provision of public

infrastructure for flood mitigation or flood management purposes; or (b) the land division results in:

(i) the creation of an allotment or allotments of 40 hectares or more in size wholly located within the Medium or High Flood Hazard Risk Areas, as shown on Overlay Maps – Development Constraints; or

(ii) the creation of an allotment or allotments of 0.5 hectares or more in Precinct 3 Two Wells; or

(iii) in all other cases, the creation of an allotment or allotments of 1 hectare or more

Major public service depot

Motel



Office

Outbuilding Except where all of the following are satisfied: (d) it has a total building height less than 6.5 metres (e) the total floor area of kennels, animal pens, sheds, stables, garages and

other outbuildings on the allotment does not cover more than 25 per cent of the total area of the allotment

Parking or storage of a vehicle exceeding 9 tonnes unladen weight

Except where (a), (b) or (c) is satisfied: (a) it is a horse float (b) it is in that area bound by Buckland Park Road to the west and Old Port

Wakefield Road to the east (c) it is not located in Precinct 3 Two Wells


Rural Living Zone


Primary School

Residential park


Road transport terminal


Shop or group of shops Except where the gross leasable area is less than 80 square metres

Stock sales yard


Store


Warehouse


Wrecking yard



Attachment L

Attachment L






PlayfordCouncil


(Metro)

Mal/12

Mal/18

Mal/19

Mal/13

Mal/10

Mal/8

Mal/2

Mal/4Mal/3

Mal/5

Mal/6

Mal/7

Mal/17

Mal/11

Mal/9

Mal/14

Mal/15Dublin

Windsor

Thompson's Beach

LongPlains

Pinery

Lower Light

Two Wells

Redbanks

Parham

Wild Horse Plains

Mallala

Virginia

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

PORT WAKEFIELD HW

Y

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

NO

RTHE

RN EXP

TRA

EG

ER

RD

MA

LLA

LA R

D

PENFIELD RD

REDBANKS RD

W

OMMA RD

GAWLER RD

ANGLE VALE RD

HEAS

LIP

RD

MALLALA COUNCIL

Overlay Map Mal/1

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

10 0 km


HighMediumLow

Flood Hazard Risk Areas(1 in 100 year ARI flood event)

Disclaimer These maps have been prepared on the basis of survey, hydraulic and hydrologic modelling.

They are only intended to be used as a policy tool for planning purposes and in broad scale flood risk management, and they should not be relied on for any other purpose.

They do not purport to illustrate actual inundation patterns, which will depend on the size and nature of a particular flood.



(Metro)

PlayfordCouncil



LandNot Within a Council


PrProMal/4

Mal/10

Mal/11

Mal/9

Mal/14

Mal/15

Mal/17

Mal/18

Mal/19

Mal/13

Mal/12

Mal/2

Mal/3

Mal/5

Mal/6

Mal/7Mal/8

Windsor

Thompson'sBeach

Long Plains

Pinery

Dublin

LowerLight

Mallala

Wild Horse Plains

Parham

Redbanks

Virginia

PORT W

AKEFIELD H

WY

PORT

WAKEFIELD

HW

Y

PORT

WAKEFIELDH

WY

NOR

TH

ERN EXP

TRA

EG

ER

RD

MA

LLA

LA R

D

PENFIELD RD

REDBANKS R

D

WOMMA RD

A NG

L

VALE RD

HEAS

LIP

RD

MALLALA COUNCIL

Zone Map Mal/1

1 mk00

Zones


Zone Boundary



TwoWellsTwo

Wel lsTwo

Wells

GAWLER RD

Urban EmploymentUE

UE


!

! !

!

!

!

CstCon

UE

SN

PrPro

SEE MAP Mal/6

90o

90 o

180o

90o

71.00

00m500.00m

700.00m

S828

A8

S342

S825

S328

S341

S358

S336

A8

S197

A4

S706

S829

A14

S705

A3

A2

A379

S318

A1

S325

S149

S322

S356

A23

A4

S236

A10

B44

A5

S321

S347

S329

A8

A7

A382

S23

A1

A4

S335

A1

A2

S34A1

A3

A3

B37

S330

S344

S320

S365

A389

S25

A388

A100

A118

S234

A15

A1

A2

A4

S348

S830B42

A380

S220

S219

S707

A13

B33

A6

A1 A4 A7

A3

A2

A3

A161

A9

A100A4

A91

S343

A2

A2 A1 Q1

S332

A14

S319

A6

B28

S340

S364

A10

A387

A7

A10

A6

S383

S704

A92

A399

A3

S363

A117

A54

A383

A202

S239

S218

A2

PORTW

AKEFIELDHW

Y


(Coastal Waters)

Middle Beach

MALLALA COUNCIL

Zone Map Mal/8

±0 2,000 m

MAP Mal/1 AdjoinsMAP Mal/6 Adjoins

MAP Mal/9 Adjoins

sniojdA 22/la

M PA

Msniojd

A 7/laM P

AM

sni o

j dA

01/l

aM

PA

M

Lamberts Conformal Conic Projection, GDA94

Zones

Coastal ConservationCstCon

Urban EmploymentUE


Suburban NeighbourhoodSN

Zone Boundary



In

IndustryIn


SEE MAP Mal/6

S707

A3

S364

S828

S830

A10

A161

A1

A399

S319

B42

A6

S330

A2

A100

S347

S149

A387

S328

S335

A2

A1

A1

A4

A2

S825

A14

B44

A2

S348

S342

S239

A2

A380

A382

B33

A10

S363

A117A118

A1

A9

A4

A92

A2 Q1

S34

S220

S218

A7

A383

A100

B37

A7

S234

A3

A3 A7

A4

S236

S706

A15

S705

S322

A3

A91S344

S219 A388

S329

A6

S332

A8

S383

S829

S321

S318

S320

A3 A4

S343

A3

S32

A389

S25

A8

A202

S356 S358

A6

A14

S704

A1

A13

A1

A379 A1

S197

B28

S336 A4

A4

S365 A10

A3

A8

S325

A2

S340 S341

S23

A5

BRO

WN

ES

RD

MIDDLE BEACH RD

TEMBY RD

PO

RTE

R R

D

DE

VO

N R

D

SHELLGRIT RD

SM

ITH

RD

HART RD

BAD

MA

N R

D

HART RD

TEMBY RD

APP

LEB

EE

RD

DAVIS RDP

OR

T

WA

KE

FI E

LD

RD


(Coastal Waters)

3

Middle Beach

MALLALA COUNCIL


0 2,000m







MAP Mal/9 Adjoins

sniojdA 22/la

M P

AM

sniojdA 7/la

M P

AM

sni o

j dA

01/l

aM

PA

M

Consolidated - 21 April 2016

!!

90 o

90o

700.00m

!

180o

! !90o

!500.00m


90o

90o

180

o

1150m

1150m

1150 m

A6

A202

Q21

A5

A101

A91

S809

A100

S483

S507

B44

A201

Q20

A15

B65

A2

A380

A29

A28A2

S34

B45

S616

S616

A2

A102

S509

A103S684

S36

A3

S825

B63

A34

S616

S629

A27

S25

S506

S624

A33

A91

Q2

A200

TRAC

K

APPLEBEE RD

PARK RD

RECREATION DR

PORT GAWLER RDLand Not Withina Council Area

(Coastal Waters)


Area (Metro)

PlayfordCouncil

3

Port Gawler Beach

Port Gawler

MALLALA COUNCIL


0 2,000m





MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM

MP

A1/l

aM

A j d

nio

sMAP Mal/8 Adjoins

laM

PA

Md

A 01

/i o

jsn100m from

centreline of river


SEE MAP Mal/23

Playford Council

SHARPE RD

PORT W

AKEFIELD H

WY

AM

RE

GN

R N

WOT

D

TEMBY RD

AILLIW

SM

DR

ORF

S T

DR

BUC

ALK

D

NP

K

RA

RD

SC

EB

MO

D

R

COATS RD

SO

RFN T

RO

R HT

D

MEANEY RD

JOHNS RD

GLOVER RD

SHELLGRIT RD

MCCORD RD

AG

ED

RN

A V

TRIM RD

ELLIS RD

TATURA AV

HORSESHOE CR

ST G

EO

RG

E B

VD

YR

S E

T

VOKES R

D

FEVA ELI T

R

ELLI

ETE

R D

COWAN RD

QAA

UT

S

DONALDSO

N RD

BAILEY RD WEST

LAGOON RD

DREW ST

OH

CIN

LD

R SL

WAR

D R

D

WALTER A

V

ELIZABETH STCANALA CT

KAY AV

STEVENS RD

JEAN AV

SABLE GR

WINDMILL RD

UR

LLE

SSR

D

ARTESIAN RD WEST

HALSTEAD RD WEST

HANCOCK DR

JEMIMA CT

CLYDESDA LE DR

WILLIA

M ST

PORT WAKEFIELD HW

Y

SHARPE RD

POR

T WAKEFIELD HW

Y

MEANEY RD

A1A3

A51

A50

A2

Q94

A10

A13

Q59

A47

Q58 A201

A52

A43

A500

A9

A44

A12

A33

A15

Q32

A46

A45

A11

A461

A6S473

S161

S251S727

A22

A14S233

S193

S232

S190

S469

A131

S442

S477

S468

B58

S470

S461

S467S462

S460 S465

A137

S459

B59

A200

S160

A503

A91

S250

A502

A150

A5

A34

S443

A92

A30

B60

S478

S480

S23

S479

S212

S213

A146

A28

A147

A429A428

A382

A393

A383

A4

A118

A154

A384

A144 A101

A386

A93A143

A23

A31

A100

A335

A351

S197

A392

A151

B61

A303

A138

A103

A328

A132A94

180 o

20 ,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 8/la

M PA

MA

M P

aM

11/l

sni o

j dA

100m from centreline of riv

er

HighMediumLow





MALLALA COUNCIL

Overlay Map Mal/10DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS


SEE MAP Mal/23

3

Playford Council

SHARPE RD

PORT W

AKEFIELD H

WY

AM

RE

GN

R N

WOT

D

TEMBY RD

AILLIW

SM

DR

ORF

S T

DR

BUC

ALK

D

NP

K

RA

RD

SC

EB

MO

D

R

COATS RD

SO

RFN T

RO

R HT

D

MEANEY RD

JOHNS RD

GLOVER RD

SHELLGRIT RD

MCCORD RD

AG

ED

RN

A V

TRIM RD

ELLIS RD

TATURA AV

HORSESHOE CR

ST G

EO

RG

E B

VD

YR

S E

T

VOKES R

D

FEVA ELI T

R

ELLI

ETE

R D

COWAN RD

QAA

UT

S

DONALDSO

N RD

BAILEY RD WEST

LAGOON RD

DREW ST

OH

CIN

LD

R SL

WAR

D R

D

WALTER A

V

ELIZABETH STCANALA CT

KAY AV

STEVENS RD

JEAN AV

SABLE GR

WINDMILL RD

UR

LLE

SSR

D

ARTESIAN RD WEST

HALSTEAD RD WEST

HANCOCK DR

JEMIMA CT

CLYDESDA LE DR

WILLIA

M ST

PORT WAKEFIELD HW

Y

SHARPE RD

POR

T WAKEFIELD HW

Y

MEANEY RD

A1A3

A51

A50

A2

Q94

A10

A13

Q59

A47

Q58 A201

A52

A43

A500

A9

A44

A12

A33

A15

Q32

A46

A45

A11

A461

A6S473

S161

S251S727

A22

A14S233

S193

S232

S190

S469

A131

S442

S477

S468

B58

S470

S461

S467S462

S460 S465

A137

S459

B59

A200

S160

A503

A91

S250

A502

A150

A5

A34

S443

A92

A30

B60

S478

S480

S23

S479

S212

S213

A146

A28

A147

A429A428

A382

A393

A383

A4

A118

A154

A384

A144 A101

A386

A93A143

A23

A31

A100

A335

A351

S197

A392

A151

B61

A303

A138

A103

A328

A132A94

180 o

MALLALA COUNCIL


20 ,000m






MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 8/la

M PA

MA

M P

aM

11/l

sni o

j dA

100m from centreline of riv

er


3

3


0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

AM

P

M1/l

aj d

A sn

i osniojd

A 01/laM

PA

M

100m from centreline of river

HighMediumLow





MALLALA COUNCIL


S128 A511

S213

A103

A102

A256

A14

A6

A5

A4

A260

S313

A2

A12

A2

A300

A1

A5

A1

A62

S7576

A91

Q91

A298

A2

A284

A470

A515

A50

A1

A2

A289

S173

S9

A7

A4

A91

A2

S74

A8

S212

S8

A100

A290

A4

A202

A292

A11

A1A1

S314

A276

A1A477

A513

A1

A11

A22

S78

A255

A6

A8

A1

A489

A11

A2

A63

S7575

A245

A303

A1

A150

A12

A299

A200

A14

JANE CR

HAYMAN RD

HA

RN

IMA

N R

D

JAM

ES

RD

JUD

D R

D

PE

DE

RIC

K R

D

CH

IVE

LL R

DB

OU

ND

AR

Y R

D

AUN

GE

R R

D

LOU

I SA RD

GAWLER RIVER RD

GEOFFREY ST

GAWLER SERVICE RD

BE

THE

SDA

RD

PE

DE

RIC

K C

T

ROBINS RD

FLE

T CH

ER

RD

ALMOND CT

WIN

NIF

RE

D R

D

BE

TTY

RD

MARGA RET RD

GILKS RD

PEPPERMINT RD

LIONEL RD WIRRAMULLA RD

CLEMENTS RD

DAWKINS RD

LAW

RIE

RD

ERINA CT

JOHNS RD

BET

HE

SD

A R

D

MC

PHA

RLI

N R

D

AU

NG

ER

RD

RO

BER

TS R

D

GO

SS

RD

AU

NG

ER

RD

GREENS RD

MCGEE RD

RO

BER

TS R

D

TOW

ER

RD

CONNELL VALE RD

PE

DE

RIC

K R

D

CO

OM

BS C

T

HAY

MA

N R

D

G A W L E R R D

PlayfordCouncil


S128 A511

S213

A103

A102

A256

A14

A6

A5

A4

A260

S313

A2

A12

A2

A300

A1

A5

A1

A62

S7576

A91

Q91

A298

A2

A284

A470

A515

A50

A1

A2

A289

S173

S9

A7

A4

A91

A2

S74

A8

S212

S8

A100

A290

A4

A202

A292

A11

A1A1

S314

A276

A1A477

A513

A1

A11

A22

S78

A255

A6

A8

A1

A489

A11

A2

A63

S7575

A245

A303

A1

A150

A12

A299

A200

A14

JANE CR

HAYMAN RD

HA

RN

IMA

N R

D

JAM

ES

RD

JUD

D R

D

PE

DE

RIC

K R

D

CH

IVE

LL R

DB

OU

ND

AR

Y R

D

AUN

GE

R R

D

LOU

I SA RD

GAWLER RIVER RD

GEOFFREY ST

GAWLER SERVICE RD

BE

THE

SDA

RD

PE

DE

RIC

K C

T

ROBINS RD

FLE

T CH

ER

RD

ALMOND CT

WIN

NIF

RE

D R

D

BE

TTY

RD

MARGA RET RD

GILKS RD

PEPPERMINT RD

LIONEL RD WIRRAMULLA RD

CLEMENTS RD

DAWKINS RD

LAW

RIE

RD

ERINA CT

JOHNS RD

BET

HE

SD

A R

D

MC

PHA

RLI

N R

D

AU

NG

ER

RD

RO

BER

TS R

D

GO

SS

RD

AU

NG

ER

RD

GREENS RD

MCGEE RD

RO

BER

TS R

D

TOW

ER

RD

CONNELL VALE RD

PE

DE

RIC

K R

D

CO

OM

BS C

T

HAY

MA

N R

D

G A W L E R R D

PlayfordCouncil

3

3

MALLALA COUNCIL


0 2,000m





MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

AM

P

M1/l

aj d

A sn

i osniojd

A 01/laM

PA

M

100m from centreline of river


33


!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P !P

180o

180o

89m

295m

124m

400m

S462

A71

A21

A1

A50A328

A15

A53

A379

A342

Q58

A3

A9

A2

A324

A380

A101

A28

A117

A100

A57

Q8

A50

A386

A1

A23

A326

A341

A323

A381

S160

A22

S715

A40

A2

A336

S812

A100

A98

S459

S716

S716

A10

A10

A103

A104

A1

A325

A329

A327

A1

A14

S180

WILL IA

M

ST

WALTER

AV

GA

ME

AU

RD

OLD

MA

L LA

LA R

D

ELIZABETH ST

KAY AV

DREWST

PORT

WAKEFIELD

HW

Y

NOBLE CR

JEAN AV

APPLEBEE RD

WILSON RD

RO

WE CR

PORTWAKEFIELD

HWY

CANALA CT

MEANEY RD

CHAPMAN ST

G A W L E R R D

BR

OO

SK

RD

WE

LL

S

RD

OL D

P O TR

WA K E

F I EL D

RD

MA

LL

AL

A R

D

TwoWells

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTSMALLALA COUNCIL

Overlay Map Mal/23TWO WELLS

±0 500 m

MAP Mal/10 Adjoins

MAP Mal/10 Adjoins

sniojdA 01/la

M PA

M sni o

j dA

01/l

aM

PA

M

HighMediumLow






A327 A325

A1

A14

S180

S462

A71

A21

A1

A50

A380

A15

A53

A379

A342

Q58

A3

A9

A2

A324

A329 A328

A101

A28

A117

A100

A57

Q8

A50

A386

A1

A23

A326

A341

A323

A381

S160

A22

S715

A40

A2

A336

S812

A100

A98

S459

S716

S716

A10

A10

A103

A104

A1

DREWST

WILL IA

M

ST

WALTER

AV

GA

ME

A

UR

D

OLD

MA

L LA

LA R

D

RO

WE CR

ELIZABETH ST

KAY AV

PORT

WAKEFIELD

HW

Y

NOBLE CR

JEAN AV

APPLEBE RD

WILSON RDPORT

WAKEFIELD

HWY

CANALA CT

MEANEY RD

CHAPMAN ST

OL D

P O R T W

A KE

F I EL D

RD

T W O W E L L S R D

WE

LL

S

RD

MA

LL

AL

A R

D

BR

OO

KS

RD

5

4

TwoWells

89m

89m

o180

295m

MALLALA COUNCIL

Policy Area Map Mal/23TWO WELLS

0 500 m



Policy Area

5 4

Two Wells Town CentreResidential

MAP Mal/10 Adjoins

MAP Mal/10 Adjoins

MA

P M

al/1

0 A

djoi

nsM

AP M

al/10 Adjoins

6 Residential

6

1

1 Recreation

114m

187m

73m83

m

!●

!●

!●

!●!●

!●

!●

!●

3

3

3 Horticulture



Attachment M

Attachment M


S728

S179

S440

S444

S147

S441S442

S823

S730

A93

S734S719

S510

S569 S443 A92

A2

S639

S445E

BEACH TCE

PORT

PRI

ME

RD


(Coastal Waters)

LOWERLIGHT

e

MALLALA COUNCIL

0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM

MAP Mal/4 AdjoinsMAP Mal/3 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 6/l

aM

PA

M

HighMediumLow






A93

A92DD

j

S444S442

S443 A92

PPPOOORRRT

TTPPPRRR

IIIMMME EE

RRRDDD

S510

S445E

S639TTTTTCCCEEE eee

S734S719

S823

S147

S179

S728

SSSSS777773330


S147

S728

A101

A3

A10

S51

S64

A95

S605

S422

S600

A829

A60

A6

S733

A5

S312

S311A72

S62

A76

A15

A6

S593

A94

A2

S602

A823

A3

S50

S63

A78 S56

S417

S591

S421

A93

S425

S349

S348

A64

A66

S601

A820

A410

A830

S730

A12

A13

S823

S446

A93

S418

A92

S499

S595S148

A2

A20

A19

S42

S307

A70

A94

A8

S401

S592

A72

S51

S46

A92

A10

A32

A14

A10

S35

S59 S57

A4

A11

S306

S41

A9

A401

S424

S343

S604

S603

Q70

S729

A1

A17

A16

A92

S43

A76

A68

S60

A7

S590

S423

A822

S53

A18

A12

S44

S58

A100

A18

A14

S735

S824

A96 S310

S594

S419

A4

S45HUNTERS RD

SMIT

H R

D

SHAN

NO

N R

D

HART RD

LIGHT BEACH RD

PENN

Y LA

NE

BIG RABBIT RD

KIDMAN RD

QU

IGL E

Y R

D

MC

EVO

Y R

D

CRABB RD

PO

RT

WA

KE

FI E

LD

RD

LOWERLIGHT

0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 1/l

aM

PA

MMAP Mal/4 Adjoins

MAP Mal/7 Adjoins MAP Mal/8 Adjoins

sniojdA 5/la

M P

AM

HighMediumLow






Overlay Map Mal/6Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee Page 422 of 431 6 November 2017

SEE MAP

A101

A6

A100

S733

A12 A11 A10

A161

A2

A15

A13

A92

S702

A15

A7

S401 A91

S701

S806

A14

S704

MIDD LE B

EACH R

D

DE R

D

MC

EV

OY

RD

GO


(Coastal Waters)

LIGHT

MidBea

0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM

MAP Mal/6 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 8/l

aM

PA

M

HighMediumLow






Overlay Map Mal/7

AAAAA11100000 AAA111555

A92

S401 A91

DD

A101

AAA666

SSSSS77773333333

AAA222AAAAAAAA777777777

MMCC

EEVV

OOY

Y

RRDD

LLLLIIGGGGHHHHTT

DD

A111222 AAAAAA11111111111 AAAAA11110AAA1333

SSSS7777700001

AAA1114

A161

S702

A15

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSS8888888880000666

HHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD

SS777000444

MMMMMMMMMIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LLLLLLLLE EEEEEEEEEEEBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEE

AAAAAAAAAAACCCCCAAAHHHHHHHCH HHHHHH

DDDDDDDDDDDDEE EEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

DDDDDDDDDGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

OOOOOOOOOO


SEE MAP Mal/6

S707

A3

S364

S828

S830

A10

A161

A1

A399

S319

B42

A6

S330

A2

A100

S347

S149

A387

S328

S335

A2

A1

A1

A4

A2

S825

A14

B44

A2

S348

S342

S239

A2

A380

A382

B33

A10

S363

A117A118

A1

A9

A4

A92

A2 Q1

S34

S220

S218

A7

A383

A100

B37

A7

S234

A3

A3 A7

A4

S236

S706

A15

S705

S322

A3

A91S344

S219 A388

S329

A6

S332

A8

S383

S829

S321

S318

S320

A3 A4

S343

A3

S32

A389

S25

A8

A202

S356 S358

A6

A14

S704

A1

A13

A1

A379 A1

S197

B28

S336 A4

A4

S365 A10

A3

A8

S325

A2

S340 S341

S23

A5

BRO

WN

ES

RD

MIDDLE BEACH RD

TEMBY RD

PO

RTE

R R

D

DE

VO

N R

D

SHELLGRIT RD

SM

ITH

RD

HART RD

BAD

MA

N R

D

HART RD

TEMBY RD

APP

LEB

EE

RD

DAVIS RDP

OR

T

WA

KE

FI E

LD

RD


(Coastal Waters)

Middle Beach

MALLALA COUNCIL

0 2,000m



MAP Mal/9 Adjoins

sniojdA 22/la

M P

AM

sniojdA 7/la

M P

AM

sni o

j dA

01/l

aM

PA

M

HighMediumLow





DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTSOverlay Map Mal/8

A117A11888

A1SSS333888333SS365 A10

SSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEE MMMMAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMaaaaaaaaal///l/66666666666S364

SSS3334447777

AAA444AAA

AAA222SSS3333344444888888

S23339

AAA2 QQQQQ111

A8

SSS333555666 SSS33358AAA1111 S365 A10

AAAAA33333

PPPPOOOOOOO

RRRRRRRRTTTTT

RRRREEEEE

R

RR

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

DDDDDDDDDDHHHAAAAAAARRRRRRRTT TTT TTTTT RRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD

AAADDD

MMMAAA

N

NNRRR

DDD

HHHAAAAAAARRRRRT TTTTTTTRRRRR RRRRRRDDDDDDD

PPOO

RRT T

WWWWWAA

KK

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMMMaaaaaaaaa /llll/l/66666666666666

AAA222

SSS11111149A1 S233399

S3666333

AA9922222

A3 A7

AAA444AAAA

S22236

AAA91S333444444S33343333

A6

A444AA

SSS33341

DD

BBBAAA

TTEEEEEEMMMMMMBBBBBBYYYYYYYYY RRRRRRRRRDDDDDD

KKEE

FFII E

LD

RRDD

S335

S3444222

SSS234S322 S3291 S3332222200

AAA333 A4AA

SSS3333666 A4AA

A2

S340 SSS3334111

TTTEEEMMMBBBY YY RRRDDDRRRR

DDDDDDDEEEEEE

VVVVVVOOOO

N

NNRRR

DDD

SSSSSSSSMMMMMMM

IIIIITTTTTTTH

HH

RRRRRRRDDDDDDD

TTEEMMBBBY Y

AAA1111100000S319

AAA666

S330S328A9

S332

S321 S33333222000

A202A8

S325

AAA555

DDDAVAA IS RRRD

AA1110S319

AAAAA1111100000

A9

S311888

A14

MMMMMMMMIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDLLLLLEE EEEE BBBBEEEAAACCCH HH RRRDDD

A161

A1

A2

A7

A15A3

A666

A1 B28

AAA3333

AAAAAAAAAA33399

BBBBB33A10000000000

AAAAA11111

A4AA

SSSSSSSSS704444444

MMMMiddddddldddd e BBBBBeeeeaaaacccchhhhhhhhhhhh

AAAAAAA2222222

AAAA111

BBBBB3337777

SSSS7705

AAA1111133333

S707

AAAAA3333388888222

AAA33333S77770000006

AA

EEEEEEEESSSSSSSS

RRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDD

SSS8828

SSS8333000B42AAAAA111144444

SSSSS22222222000

AAA333888333

AA33388888888AA333888999

S197BBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOO

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN

BBBEEE

E

EERRR

DDDD

A338887S218

A7

S219 A33388

SSSSS888882222299999

S32

AAA389

A8

S23

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIT TTT TTTTTTTT RRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDD

AAAPPPPPP

LLLEEEBBB

BBB4444

A2

A380SS3334 A100

AAA3

S32

S25

A379 A1

SSSSS888882222255555


A5

S616

S629

A27

A200

S506

S624

A33

B44A101

A91

S809

A100

S483

S825

A91

A201

Q20

A15

B65

A2

A380

A29A28A2

S34

B45

S616

S616

Q21

S507

A202

A6

Q2

A2

A102

S509

A103

S684

S36

A3S25

B63

A34

RECREATION DR

TRAC

KAPPLEBEE RD

PARK RD

PORT GAWLER RD


(Coastal Waters)

PlayfordCouncil


Area (Metro)

PORTGAWLER

Port Gawler CP

Port Gawler Beach

Port Gawler

MALLALA COUNCIL

0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM

sni o

j dA

1/la

M P

AM

MAP Mal/8 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 01

/la

M P

AM

HighMediumLow






A101

A100

SSSSS888882222555AAA222

A3888000S34

B45A102

AAA333S25

AAAAA333444

AAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLEEEEEEBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD

PPorrrrrrt ttrrrrrr GGGaaawler Beachchch

j

AAAAA3333333

BBB44

AAAA222999AAAAA2222288888

S36

RRRRTTTTTTTTTT GGGGGGGGAAAAAWWWWWWWAAAA LLLLLLLEEER RR RRRDDD

PPP rtttrr GGGGGaaaaawwwllerrrrA2

AAA2

AAAAAAAAAA1103

RRREEECCCCRRREEEAAAAAATTTTTTTTTAAAAAAA IIIIIIOOOOOOON NN NNNNNN DDDRRRRRRRRRRR

TTTRRRAAAACCC

KKK

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRT TTTTTT G

PPPorrrtttrrr GGGGGaaawwwwwllleeeeerrrrrr

A27

SSS684

TTT

P

A2777

A2000

S809

AAA55555555555


A33

A11

A32

A13

A12A10

A411

A18

A20

A8

FRO

ST R

D

WY

LI E RD

PO

RT

WA

KE

FI E

LD

RD

RT

Lower Light

MALLALA COUNCIL

LOWER LIGHT

0 250m

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM sn

i oj d

A 1/l

aM

PA

M

HighMediumLow





DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTSOverlay Map Mal/19

A13333

AA12A10

FRO

ST R

D

j

A11

Lower Lr ighhhttt

RRTT

A32

A2220

A33

A4AA 11

W

A8

WY

LIE RD

PO

RT

A8

T

WA

KE

FA1888 FI EEEE

LD DD

RD


A106

S703

A100

A555

S800

A104

S705

S705

S706

S806

S704

MID

DLE

BEA

CH R

D

T E

HE

SPLA

NA

ED

RD

SHO

RE

BI RD

RD

GO

V T. RD

GOVT. RD


(Coastal Waters)

EH

Middle Beach

MIDDLE BEACH

0 500m


MAP Mal/7 Adjoins

MAP Mal/7 Adjoins

sniojdA 7/la

M P

AM sn

i oj d

A 8/l

aM

PA

M


Overlay Map Mal/22HighMediumLow





S703SSSS806

AAAA11106

A100

AAAAA55555

S704

MMMMMMIIDDDDDDD

DDDLLLLLLLE

EBBEEEEE

AAACHH H

RRD

SSSHHHHHHOOOOOO

RREEEEEEE

BBII RRRRDDDDDDDDDDD

RRRRRRRRRDDDDDDD

GGGOOOVVVVVTTT.TT RRRDDD

EEHH

S8000000

AAAAA11110000004

S705

TTTEE

HHHEEEEEEEEE

SSSSSSPPPPPPPLLLAA

NNNAAA

EEEDD

RRRDD

GGOO

V T. RD

MMiiMM dddddiii dddddllldddd ee BBBBeeach

S77770000000555

SSSS77777777706


MALLALA COUNCIL

Zone Map Mal/24Zones

Urban EmploymentUE


Zone Boundary


MA

P M

al/4

Adj

oins

0 2,000

UE

PrPro

PrPro






PlayfordCouncil


(Metro)

Mal/12

Mal/18

Mal/19

Mal/13

Mal/10

Mal/8

Mal/2

Mal/4Mal/3

Mal/5

Mal/6

Mal/7

Mal/17

Mal/11

Mal/9

Mal/14

Mal/15Dublin

Windsor

Thompson's Beach

LongPlains

Pinery

Lower Light

Two Wells

Redbanks

Parham

Wild Horse Plains

Mallala

Virginia

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

PORT WAKEFIELD HW

Y

PORT W

AKEFIELD HWY

NO

RTHE

RN EXP

TRA

EG

ER

RD

MA

LLA

LA R

D

PENFIELD RD

REDBANKS RD

W

OMMA RD

GAWLER RD

ANGLE VALE RD

HEAS

LIP

RD

MALLALA COUNCIL


10 0 km

Development Plan BoundaryPolicy Area Boundary


3

3


S147

S728

A101

A3

A10

S51

S64

A95

S605

S422

S600

A829

A60

A6

S733

A5

S312

S311A72

S62

A76

A15

A6

S593

A94

A2

S602

A823

A3

S50

S63

A78 S56

S417

S591

S421

A93

S425

S349

S348

A64

A66

S601

A820

A410

A830

S730

A12

A13

S823

S446

A93

S418

A92

S499

S595S148

A2

A20

A19

S42

S307

A70

A94

A8

S401

S592

A72

S51

S46

A92

A10

A32

A14

A10

S35

S59 S57

A4

A11

S306

S41

A9

A401

S424

S343

S604

S603

Q70

S729

A1

A17

A16

A92

S43

A76

A68

S60

A7

S590

S423

A822

S53

A18

A12

S44

S58

A100

A18

A14

S735

S824

A96 S310

S594

S419

A4

S45HUNTERS RD

SMIT

H R

D

SHAN

NO

N R

D

HART RD

LIGHT BEACH RD

PENN

Y LA

NE

BIG RABBIT RD

KIDMAN RD

QU

IGL E

Y R

D

MC

EVO

Y R

D

CRABB RD

PO

RT

WA

KE

FI E

LD

RD

LOWERLIGHT

MALLALA COUNCIL


0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 1/l

aM

PA

MMAP Mal/4 Adjoins

MAP Mal/7 Adjoins MAP Mal/8 Adjoins

sniojdA 5/la

M P

AM



3


SEE MAP Mal/22

A101

A6

A100

A5

S733

A12 A11 A10

A161

A2

S703

A15

A13

A92

S702

A15

A7

S401 A91

S701

S806

A14

S704

MIDD LE B

EACH R

D

THE ESPLAN

ADE R

D

MC

EV

OY

RD

SHOREBIRD

RD

GO

VT. R

D


(Coastal Waters)

LOWERLIGHT

MIDDLEBEACH

MiddleBeach

MALLALA COUNCIL

0 2,000m


MAP Mal/1 Adjoins

sniojdA 1/la

M P

AM

MAP Mal/6 Adjoinssn

iojd

A 8/l

aM

PA

M

Policy Area Map Mal/7Policy Area Boundary


3


notice of ordinary meeting of council

Documents