LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 September 2006

MATTERS OF INTEREST

CHELTENHAM RACECOURSE

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last week I was pleased to attend a public meeting organised by community groups trying to protect the Cheltenham Racecourse from a proposed housing development. I am pleased to say that the meeting was attended by several hundred people — 400 or 500 is the common estimate — and, while there are often comments of apathy in the community and suggestions that people are not engaging in community life, here was an excellent example of hundreds of people coming out at night to attend a public meeting to stand up for something that is very important to them.

Most of the media coverage that followed that meeting was around the stoush between two ALP members — one federal and one state. Whilst it is always good sport to see members of the same party in dispute over an issue, there is a risk that we lose sight of the real issues. The dispute between the members was over origins of the Cheltenham racetrack and whether it was bequested in a will to the community or racing club or purchased for money. It does not make any difference to the present issue, namely, what we will do with the 50 hectare racecourse site and adjoining 15 hectare former industrial site, and how we can make the most of the opportunity these large parcels of land present for providing quality open space for the people of the western suburbs. It is one of the last large tracts of land remaining in that part of metropolitan Adelaide.

The existing residents and various others who have come from far afield to support the campaign have a clear message. Overwhelmingly, they want open space rather than housing development for that location. I think their call is legitimate when you look at the proportion of open space available to people in the western suburbs compared with people in the eastern suburbs. The government may believe it has gone far enough by promising that any rezoning will have to provide for a minimum of 30 per cent open space rather than the standard 15 per cent, but the residents certainly disagree and the call at the public meeting was for 100 per cent open space.

However, it is clear that there is pressure everywhere for housing on land. There is pressure within the existing urban area as well as on the urban fringe, and in respect of the potential for transit oriented development — development focused on existing transport corridors, in particular public transport corridors such as railway land. The question for us is whether it is possible to meet both the needs of the residents and the needs of the broader community for land for housing and to do it in an ecologically sustainable way. I believe it is, and one of the ways to try to meet all these objectives is to consider both the 15 hectare Sheridan site, the former industrial land, and the 50 hectare jockey club land to be a single development opportunity.

There might be room for horse trading, to use a bad pun, between the two parcels of land. The government says that that is not possible because the ownership is in different hands, but I am not convinced that that is a sufficient rationale. Certainly the owners of the former industrial land would be entitled to re-establish industry because the zoning is appropriate, but I do not think there is any obligation on the government to assist either the jockey club or the owners of the former Sheridan site to maximise the land value. Maximising it means squeezing as many houses as you can on to that land.

The government's obligation under planning law is broader than that. The government has the tools to make sure we get good open space outcomes for the residents of the western suburbs. Compulsory acquisition is one approach, but people often baulk at that idea. As a society we have no qualms about compulsorily acquiring land for freeways, roads, bridges or tunnels. My call to the government is to consider all of the parcels of land as a single opportunity and to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the residents of the western suburbs for decent open space. I suggest that they are no less entitled to it than are the residents of the eastern suburbs, so a mix of 70 per cent open space and perhaps 30 per cent housing would be far preferable to the other way around.