[Greens-Media] PARNELL: Govt's timetable for urban sprawl shows Mt Barker already a done deal

[Parnell]

Media Release
Tuesday 12th October 2010


Govt's timetable for urban sprawl shows Mt Barker already a done deal


A Government report released today is a timetable for urban sprawl that has already has factored in the Mt Barker land re-zoning - even before the public consultation process is complete, says Greens MLC Mark Parnell.

The report Housing and Employment Land Supply Program Report 2010, Greater Adelaide already assumes the 1310 hectares of the Mt Barker Urban Growth DPA has been re-zoned.  Yet, due to overwhelming community opposition the public consultation process for the DPA is still continuing with the last of an unprecedented 5 public meetings scheduled for tomorrow night.

"The 30 Year Plan is a roadmap for urban sprawl - now this report released today sets out when the sprawl will happen," said Greens MLC and planning lawyer Mark Parnell.

"Even worse, though, is the utter contempt the Government is showing to the people of Mt Barker and other communities on the urban fringe by indicating the Mt Barker re-zoning is a done deal - even before the public consultation is complete.

"For the last month Mt Barker residents have been attending the longest ever re-zoning consultation process held in SA - an unprecedented 5 nights of hearings.  Yet on the eve of the final public meeting the Minister has released a report that has already factored in the 1310 hectares of farming land for development.

"What's the point of going through a charade of public consultation if the decision has already been made?

"And what sort of message is this sending to other communities under threat to the North and South of Adelaide?" Mr Parnell said.




For further comment contact Craig Wilkins on 0434 007 893





The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, access to it is unauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful