Newport Quays

30 Oct 2008 questionsarchive

I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about a Newport Quays application.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Port Adelaide Enfield Council rejected an application from Newport Quays at one of its meeting this year. It provided in its minutes, which run to some six pages, some 45 different aspects for why the application was rejected, including threatening viability of a retail/commercial focus around a public plaza in stage 2C of Newport Quays; varying markedly from the concept plan contained in the development plan; negative impacts on the heritage significance of the state heritage listed Hart's Mill complex and other local heritage places; and that there were some 130 apartments with bedrooms without windows. Does the minister envisage that, under the better development planning process, this particular development would have received approval?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:34): The honourable member is incorrect when she says the Port Adelaide Enfield Council rejected an application. The approving authority for development on that site is the Port Waterfront Redevelopment Committee, which is a subcommittee of DAC, which was specifically set up to make those decisions. It is true that recently that subcommittee has rejected the most recent application from the developers in relation to that site.

Obviously, the Port Adelaide Enfield Council is consulted, and it may well have expressed a view on it. However, I point out that the council does not have the capacity to reject applications as such; the approval of any development applications is the duty of this subcommittee of DAC.

In relation to the types of buildings that might be approved and high-rise buildings in general, that has nothing to do with the residential development code that the government is proposing.

I think the honourable member was referring to a better development plan. I do not expect that that is the case, but I would have to examine which part of that code the honourable member might be referring to in relation to that application.

Let me say that the subcommittee of DAC, the Port Waterfront Redevelopment Committee, rejected the most recent application by the developers because it believed that it was not in accordance with the development plan for the area.