Housing Developments | Southern Suburbs

[Ho Really]

McLaren Vale sprawl brawl
September 30, 2007

PICTURESQUE McLaren Vale is locked in a battle to save its tourism treasures from urban sprawl.

Food, wine and tourism industry leaders have joined community groups to fight State Government plans to extend Adelaide's urban boundary near Port Willunga.

The Southern Community Coalition has written to all state Cabinet ministers on behalf of the McLaren Vale community to protest against planned changes to Adelaide's urban boundary that would make development possible on what protesters say is prime agricultural land.

It also plans a series of public events to express community concerns.

These will include an information booth at the opening of Willunga Town Square on October 13, activities during the Tasting Australia Festival from October 13-20 and a public forum with local and State Government involvement later this year.

Key food, wine and tourism figures have given their support to the coalition's submission to the Government.

These include Port Willunga's Star of Greece restaurant owner Zanny Twopenny and McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association chairman Jock Harvey.

The Government announced proposed changes to the urban growth boundary in July, which include opening up 400ha of land at Bowering Hill for residential development.

At the time of the announcement, Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway said areas within the proposed new boundary would "not include any environmentally sensitive land or land used for high-value agriculture".

However, Southern Vales residents and businesses said land to be included within the proposed new urban boundary at Bowering Hill is of great agricultural, environmental and historical significance.

Adelaide Showground Farmer's Market project manager Zannie Flanagan said the area was some of the best grain land in Australia and had been described as the best arable land in South Australia.

"It has the potential for many other crops and orchards as well as olives and grapes," she said.

Mr Harvey said the land should be released for vineyards and open space.

"It could grow (Penfolds) Grange, without question," he said.

"It's beautiful red loam over limestone – like a terra rosa. We're not against all development in the region but we'd like to have some constructive dialogue with the Government about the type of development."

The current urban boundary was introduced in 2002 to focus residential development in areas with significant investment in infrastructure and to protect high-value agricultural land near the boundary.

Southern Community Coalition spokeswoman Stephanie Johnston said opposition to the extension of the urban growth boundary was not a case of "not in my back yard".

"This area is not just our back yard – it's Adelaide's playground," she said. "If housing spreads right through that area, it would mean people drive through the suburbs to get to McLaren Vale instead of escaping the suburbs for McLaren Vale.

"There's also very strong argument to protect the land . . . as one of the last bits of fertile agricultural land available on the Adelaide plains," she said.

Ms Johnston said the Southern Community Coalition would hold a demonstration against the proposed urban boundary changes at the opening of the Willunga Town Square on October 13. In a statement emailed to the Sunday Mail by his media adviser, Rik Morris, Mr Holloway said the Government would "begin the process of giving submissions careful consideration over the coming weeks and months".

He said the Government did not consider the Bowering Hill area to be high-value agricultural land.

"Whether we go north or south, this is the sort of land that we have had to identify for possible urban expansion in the medium to long term," he said.

The Advertiser

Cheers

[Bulldozer]

It will truely be a shame to see this land built on and looking like the ghetto that is Seaford Rise. (It's a shame all that was and is being built on as well.) It is some of the best land in the state and has been traditionally cropped for wheat and barley. Good soil, sea breezes and reliable rainfall. Besides that, the rural look is what attracts tourists to the area.

It's stupid to move the growth boundary whenever we run out of "greenfields" land. I thought the whole point of the boundary was to encourage increased density within existing developed areas?

[SRW]

I thought the whole point of the boundary was to encourage increased density within existing developed areas?

Exactly. The Premier's beloved Portland has been far more true to theirs. The growth boundary needs to be entrenched, even if it means we lose out on affordability.

[muzzamo]

Thats an incredibly selfish attitude.

Maybe you should go live in an apartment so that first home buyers can actually afford the type of property that you take for granted

[SRW]

Thats an incredibly selfish attitude.

Maybe you should go live in an apartment so that first home buyers can actually afford the type of property that you take for granted

It's no more selfish than allowing Adelaide's geographical and ecological footprint to increase exponentially so that it may fit unsustainably more and more of what you covet.

And spare us the ad hominem.

[muzzamo]

You do realise that the urban sprawl had to grow so that you could live where you are now?

[jimmy_2486]

HAHAH jee I think we have wayyy too much urban sprawl already.

I mean yeah if we had like 2-3mill+ people then push the boundaries out a bit. But come on, we have the cheapest housing in the country (except hobart and country towns), who are we to complain about affordability?

[Will]

But come on, we have the cheapest housing in the country (except hobart and country towns), who are we to complain about affordability?

For many people buying a house is now impossible.

I think the solution is to increase supply. By supply I do not neccesarily mean extending the growth boundaries, but rather for the governemnt to build mid to high rise residential properties along major roads (for easy access of public transport) and sell them for the price of construction. This would reduce demand and theoretically should reduce the price of property.

[AtD]

Thats an incredibly selfish attitude.

Maybe you should go live in an apartment so that first home buyers can actually afford the type of property that you take for granted

Selfish? As opposed to building a house on prime farm land, far away from services and then whine to the government because those taxpayer funded services aren't good enough? Or commuting by car every day... or so on.

[Bulldozer]

Thats an incredibly selfish attitude.

Maybe you should go live in an apartment so that first home buyers can actually afford the type of property that you take for granted

Really, these days what is the difference between a house on a block in a new subdivision and an apartment? Not much, since nowadays the blocks are small and the homes take up essentially all of the block. I wonder why they just don't say stuff it now and build common walls between blocks.

Adelaide is a city ideally suited to apartment living due to the incredible amount of parklands within walking distance. Apartments don't just have to be one or two bedroom jobs - they can be the size of a normal home as well. If we can get 50,000 or more people living in the city then there'll be a lot of money for the council to spend on making the parklands a lot nicer.

If you want to have a house and garden then you're going to have to pay for it in Adelaide, otherwise there are other towns and cities around the state where such things are a lot cheaper. Adelaide is way too large for its population - it takes around two hours to drive from end to end!

I've been living in an inner-city apartment here in Brisbane for over a year now and it's every bit as good as a home. It's essentially sound proof and everything is within walking distance, so I don't own a car. The two times I've needed a car, I hired one.

[muzzamo]

Selfish? As opposed to building a house on prime farm land, far away from services and then whine to the government because those taxpayer funded services aren't good enough? Or commuting by car every day... or so on.

Once again you do realise that where you are living now was probably once considered a part of urban sprawl as well?

I think this type of inter-generational conflict is going to become more and more common in Australia...

[jimmy_2486]

The two times I've needed a car, I hired one.

Couldnt u have just caught a cab?

[SRW]

You do realise that the urban sprawl had to grow so that you could live where you are now?

Which is entirely irrelevant to the current argument — namely, stopping further sprawl.

[muzzamo]

So would you support turning glenthorne farm into housing or is that another NIMBY argument?

[skyliner]

The trend, despite all our discussion, is towards high rise inner city living in Australia. I see it partially as a 'fashion' trend given relative costs of houses and apartments, ('city change' if you like), smaller housing blocks in the suburbs, greater inconveniences in living in the suburbs (such as travel costs, need of a car, no buses, no trains), huge urban footprints causing headaches for providers of utilities, bridges etc, loss of productive farmland, isolation etc etc.

As has been said or implied by others, urban Adelaide is big enough for it's population. Brisbane, with 1.7m is the biggest urban area for it's populaion in the world - it goes on and on - with constant massive infrastructure problems. IMO Adelaide is more manageable and should be controlled concerning urban extent. VERY VERY little high rise in the suburbs has contributed to the sprawl IMO. (This is a legacy of an absolute hatred of anything over three floors - in one case on Anzac Hwy, a nine floor block was put up and locals pulled some of the walls down during the night to stop it).

If urbam sprawl MUST continue, I believe all the open areas in the current footprint need filling first - If able to be built on.