Submission - Draft Planning and Design Code Phase ThreeLandlocked
by DPA -- Direk Rural. Attachments: Attachment 1.pdf; Attachment
2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf;
Attachment 5.pdf; Attachment 6.pdf; DPA - Letter to Minister
v2.docx; Letter to Chair - State Planning Commission .pdf
Importance: High
Good Day Sir/Madam,
We are writing in
to appeal and
register strong objections regarding
the Rural (Aircraft Noise) Direk
Industry and
Residential Interface Development Plan Amendment submitted by Salisbury Council.
We wrote to the Minister in late 2018 and note that it is still an open matter on his desk.
We also wrote to the State Planning Commission at the time but then the Planning Commission was in its infancy and
deferred the matter to the Minister’s Office and the DPTI.
Today however, with the State Planning Commission better placed and empowered to look into such matters and as
it seeks feedback on its draft planning and design code, we feel it is timely to write again to appeal for help please. We
are desperate for help as we feel we have been railroaded and blindsided in the manner that the Rural (Aircraft Noise)
Direk Industry and Residential
Interface Development Plan Amendment was submitted by Salisbury Council.
In its
present form it has major and very negative implications to our affected property.
The details of our appeal for help consists of 8 attachments:
1.
Cover Letter to Chair, State Planning Commission dated 16 Oct 2018
2.
Letter to Minister, and the associated attachments (x6) dated 29 Sep 2018
In essence, we seek your kind and urgent help to return the DPA to the Council and for the Council to factor and
incorporate our concerns into the DPA. The Council should be strongly encouraged to re seek residential zoning
within 2025 ANEF contour – review of the previous Minister’s decision is needed. Alternatively, should the State
Planning Commission be fully empowered to amend the DPA, then we urge the Planning Commission to review,
revise and amend the DPA. A fresh and rational look is warranted, balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
We appeal for good sense to prevail. Most of all, we appeal for fairness. We have been unfairly treated and totally
blindsided.
Submitted please,
, Burton
2
Marrone Fresh has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all its communications, including electronic
communications. If you have received this email in error please contact Marrone Fresh by immediately returning the email to
[email protected] and destroying the original. If this communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised
recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition includes
reading, printing, copying, retransmitting, disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in reliance with this information. This
email may contain privileged client information. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Projects Marrone
Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2018 12:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Appeal for Help Landlocked by DPA Direk Rural.
Importance: High Good Day Jess,
We spoke earlier today.
There are 8 attachments:
1.
Cover Letter to Chair, State Planning Commission
2.
Letter to Minister, and associated attachments (x6)
Appreciate if you could confirm that the Chair has indeed received the cover letter and the letter to the Minister
with the associated attachments, please.
Thank you Jess.
Philip Kahlenberg
Projects and Business Analysis
20 Beadell Street, Burton, SA 5110
T |
| E
[email protected]
Marrone Fresh has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all its communications, including electronic
communications. If you have received this email in error please contact Marrone Fresh by immediately returning the email to
[email protected] and destroying the original. If this communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised
recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition includes
reading, printing, copying, retransmitting, disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in reliance with this information. This
email may contain privileged client information. Thank you for your cooperation.
3
The Hon Stephan Knoll, MP Minister for Transport, Infrastructure,
Local Government and Planning 77 Grenfell Street Adelaide, SA
5000
29 Sep 2018
Re: Rural (Aircraft Noise) Direk Industry and Residential Interface
Development Plan Amendment
My wife and I appeal for your help not to approve or endorse the
referenced DPA submitted by Salisbury Council in its present
form.
We are deeply troubled in that the document submitted to you is
materially different to the public consultation version. We have
been blindsided. We met with Mr Peter Jansen, Strategic Planner of
Salisbury Council several times over the years on the DPA and its
many versions. Mr Jansen would therefore have known that the
changes he was drafting following the public consultation would
seriously and negatively impact our family. We were not notified
and only learnt about it by chance on 26 Sep 18 when we emailed him
asking if there was an update. He stated that there were “No
updates as yet, suffice to say that Council endorsed the draft DPA
for lodgement with the Minister. No response from the Minister as
yet, and I would suspect it will be a while.” However, upon
checking we discovered there were significant changes made which
directly impacted us and we were utterly shocked to learn about
it.
Our deep concerns and strong views were expressed to Mr Jansen in
person dating back to 2016, and in emails dated 19 Oct 2016 and 16
Nov 2016. Both these two emails are attached. We append the key
points made by our staff member in those emails:
a) Email dated 19 Oct 2016 to Mr Jansen “…we are very concerned
about the current Direk RUAN Residential rezoning plans…We were not
adequately consulted on the matter even though it was inferred in
your April report to the Policy and Planning Committee that Tom
Game (Botten and Levinson) was consulted on our behalf. The options
presented in the report were certainly not discussed with us or as
we understand it, neither was it also expressed to Tom Game.
With respect to the report dated 19 Sep, we are deeply troubled as
to the proposal being articulated. Any reasonable person would
conclude that the Marrones’ would be very negatively impacted by
the proposal.
The UE zoning is for some distant time frame were it to materialise
– at present, for example, there are no access roads to the land
being zoned UE.
The changes to the residential zone boundary provide no meaningful
benefit to Marrones’ but have the potential to jeopardise the use
of their land for horticulture and associated activities. The
proposed creation of a residential zone on their boundary and the
potential for residential development to prejudice the use of the
Marrone land is of major concern.
To bring the residential zone to the boundary of the Marrones’
would undoubtedly cause major issue with the neighbours and
threaten the ongoing use of the Marrone land for horticulture
activities…The
2 | P a g e
land today still generates revenue and income for the Marrones’.
The Marrones’ also invested in improving the irrigation system
earlier this year…The plan being pushed through by the Council
clearly advances the interests of some but seriously impacts the
Marrones’…We register our strong objection to the plan, and seek a
meeting to see how you and your staff can also advance the
interests of the Marrones’, please. We ask that this be done prior
to the plan being submitted to the Minister, please. If the intent
is to proceed to submit it to the Minister, we seek to be notified
without delay so we may register our strong objection to the Mayor
and to the Minister. All we ask is that the Marrones’ interests be
given fair representation in the Direk RUAN – at present it clearly
and seriously does not.”
b) In the email dated 16 Nov 2016 to Mr Jansen:
“The sense of permanence that can arise from the rezoning concerns
me deeply.
Because of long-term implications it can have on the Marrones’
property, I seek your understanding to meet with them to discuss
this matter personally with them before you send anything to the
Minister.
… I do recall that during the meeting you did acknowledge that
compared to others, the Marrones’ are the most affected – this is a
compelling reason in itself for you to hear from them, and for them
to hear from you.
The plan is a non-starter without addressing the Marrones’ concerns
primarily because of the following reasons:
1) Access road. This is especially so given that you mentioned that
Beadell Street would be closed to use by those in the UE zone. Who
will build this access road? When will it be built? The Marrones’
would be landlocked. I recall that you were going to research and
revert on whether Council is required to build access road given
that the Rezoning Plan would result in Marrones’ being
landlocked.
2) Residential Zone Boundary. Another major contentious matter,
where it clearly benefits another but negatively impacts
Marrones’.
In summary, the main concerns were discussed during our meeting and
reiterated. Since the meeting however, the concerns I had then have
deepened.”
Additionally, the Council appears to whitewash our concerns about
the buffer for the UE zone – they have decided unilaterally to draw
a buffer on our side of the land as reflected in page 26 of the
proposed DPA. We stated that the principle of being no-worse off is
a condition for supporting the DPA. The Council is pushing through
the DPA mandating that we sacrifice our land as buffer – no
landowner would agree to it without proper compensation.
During the meeting with Mr Jansen in June 2018 during the public
consultation phase, we were led to believe that the residential
boundary of our land and our neighbour’s would not move as Defence
and your predecessor were totally against any intensification of
housing within 20-25 ANEF. We then learnt of the Public Safety Zone
as it relates to end of runway development. We asked about the
impact to the DPA and was informed by Mr Jansen that it was not
clear. We now learn that it basically will not impact the DPA. If
the Council wishes to move the residential boundary and approve the
extended residential zoning of neighbouring property, then it
should in all fairness also articulate and make the case for our
land as well. We held out hope for our land to be rezoned
residential but were led to believe by Mr Jansen that this was
unlikely to happen for our neighbour or ourselves given the PSZ
development and the hard position adopted by Defence and your
predecessor.
3 | P a g e
Our strong preference all along has been for our property to be
rezoned Residential as was attempted in an earlier version of the
DPA. We held hope for residential rezoning – from the time we
purchased our property, such an eventuality became an integral part
of our retirement plans. We were therefore deeply saddened to hear
that the previous Minister did not support the residential
rezoning. We have strongly felt that the previous Minister erred in
his judgment and did not view the matter in a balanced way --
rational perspective should have prevailed and the residential
rezoning in an earlier DPA version should have been passed. This is
because the resultant residential rezoning proposed by the Council
in its original scope would have encompassed only a small area and
no reasonable person would have classified the resultant housing
that could have come forth to be a major development. Closer
reading of the ANEF guidelines and also the DRAFT National Airport
Safeguarding Framework Guideline shows that there is scope for
housing and for decision makers and planners to exercise judgment
in deciding on new housing – nowhere does it state a mandatory rule
that no new housing is to be permitted within ANEF 20-25 contour.
Council should be encouraged to resubmit the DPA with residential
rezoning encompassing 20-25 ANEF contour.
Our hope is to have our land value unlocked by having the portion
within 20-25 ANEF be rezoned residential. In this way, we and our
neighbour will also not have different zone boundaries abutting
each other.
The Council by its actions and advancing the DPA as it is before
you has caused us great distress. We do not want to be seen as the
ones to torpedo the DPA and affect land owners and property owners.
We have been put in a very distressing predicament.
Mr Jansen is clearly wrong to state in page 44 of the DPA that the
property most affected is bisected by two zones – he has stated to
us in person that we are the people most affected by the DPA.
In summary, we seek your kind and urgent help to return the DPA to
the Council and for the Council to factor and incorporate our
concerns into the DPA. The Council should be strongly encouraged to
re seek residential zoning within 20-25 ANEF contour – review of
the previous Minister’s decision is needed. A fresh and rational
look is warranted, balancing the interests of all
stakeholders.
We appeal for good sense to prevail. Most of all, we appeal for
fairness. We have been unfairly treated and totally
blindsided.
Yours Faithfully
4 | P a g e
Attachments: 1. Email to Mr Jansen dated 19 Oct 2016 2. Email to Mr
Jansen dated 16 Nov 2016 3. Current Zoning Map 4. DPA Map – Jun
2018 Public Consultation. 5. DPA Map – Aug/Sep 2018. 6. DPA Map
with Residential Rezoning 20-25 ANEF – Council needs to
resubmit.
The Hon, Mr Michael Lennon
Chair, State Planning Commission
GPO, Box 1815
Adelaide, SA 5001
16 Oct 2018
Re: Landlocked -- Rural (Aircraft Noise) Direk Industry and
Residential Interface
Development Plan Amendment
It came to our attention that in a very recent radio interview you
mentioned about
landowners being landlocked by development plans. It is in this
regard that my wife and I
write to you, appealing for your kind assistance.
We are deeply concerned about the referenced DPA which is now
before the Minister. We
have written to the Minister and have also been in contact with Mr
Jeffery Sewart of DPTI.
The letter to the Minister together with all the attachments are
attached.
We are desperate for help given the long-term implications and
sense of permanence
attached to an approved DPA.
The DPA as it stands clearly results in us being worse off - our
land is part of our retirement
inheritance plan. All we seek is fairness and our concerns
addressed fully.
Yours Faithfully
i'·,J1~\ . \\ \J ~~\~\_~
1. Email to Mr Jansen dated 19 Oct 2016
2. Email to Mr Jansen dated 16 Nov 2016 3. Current Zoning Map
4. DPA Map -Jun 2018 Public Consultation.
5. DPA Map -Aug/Sep 2018.
6. DPA Map with Residential Rezoning 20-25 ANEF - Council needs to
resubmit.
llPage
From: Projects Marrone To: Cc: Tom Game Subject: Major Concerns on
Direk RUAN Residential Rezoning Plans Date: Wednesday, 19 October
2016 7:14:00 AM Attachments: image003.png
Good Day Sir,
I called twice last week but learnt that you were on leave.
We write to express that we are very concerned about the current
Direk RUAN Residential rezoning plans as stated in your Policy and
Planning report in April and more recently the report dated 19
Sep.
We were not adequately consulted on the matter even though it was
inferred in your April report to the Policy and Planning Committee
that Tom Game (Botten and Levinson) was consulted on our behalf.
The options presented in the report were certainly not discussed
with us or as we understand it, neither was it also expressed to
Tom Game.
With respect to the report dated 19 Sep, we are deeply troubled as
to the proposal being articulated. Any reasonable person would
conclude that the Marrones’ would be very negatively impacted by
the proposal. The UE zoning is for some distant time frame were it
to materialise – at present, for example, there are no access roads
to the land being zoned UE.
The changes to the residential zone boundary provide no meaningful
benefit to Marrones’ but have the potential to jeopardise the use
of their land for horticulture and associated activities. The
proposed creation of a residential zone on their boundary and the
potential for residential development to prejudice the use of the
Marrone land is of major concern.
To bring the residential zone to the boundary of the Marrones’
would undoubtedly cause major issue with the neighbours and
threaten the ongoing use of the Marrone land for horticulture
activities. Under current Primary Production Zoning, we are still
able to undertake market gardening activities and indeed we just
harvested a crop from the land. The land today still generates
revenue and income for the Marrones’. The Marrones’ also invested
in improving the irrigation system earlier this year. We will
shortly be applying for a further approval for our packing shed
which will now abut the proposed residential zone boundary. The
plan being pushed through by the Council clearly advances the
interests of some but seriously impacts the Marrones’. Why was such
a plan not sensitive to the negative impact it would have on the
Marrones’ ?
We register our strong objection to the plan, and seek a meeting to
see how you and your staff can also advance the interests of the
Marrones’, please.
We ask that this be done prior to the plan being submitted to the
Minister, please.
If the intent is to proceed to submit it to the Minister, we seek
to be notified without delay so we may register our strong
objection to the Mayor and to the Minister.
Attachment 1 -- Email dtd 19 Oct 2016 to Mr Jansen, Strategic
Planner, Salisbury Council
All we ask is that the Marrones’ interests be given fair
representation in the Direk RUAN – at present it clearly and
seriously does not.” Sincerely, Philip Kahlenberg Projects and
Business Analysis 20 Beadell Street, Burton, SA 5110 T 61 | M | E
[email protected]
Marrone Fresh has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all its communications, including electronic
communications. If you have received this email in error please
contact Marrone Fresh by immediately returning the email to
[email protected] and destroying the original. If this
communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised
recipient of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with
or relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition
includes reading, printing, copying, re-transmitting,
disseminating, storing or in any other way dealing or acting in
reliance with this information. This email may contain privileged
client information. Thank you for your co-operation.
P PLEASE Think Before You Print - 1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree
and 5.4kg CO2 in the atmosphere. 3 sheets of A4 paper = 1 litre of
water
From: Projects Marrone
To: Peter Jansen
Subject: RE: Major Concerns on Direk RUAN Residential Rezoning
Plans
Date: Wednesday, 16 November 2016 12:53:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png
Good Day Sir,
We met two weeks ago to discuss the rezoning, and particularly our
concerns with the plans. Appreciated very much your time in coming
over and discussing
with us the rezoning plans.
I have been thinking through the matter many times over. The sense
of permanence that can arise from the rezoning concerns me
deeply.
Because of long-term implications it can have on the Marrones’
property, I seek your understanding to meet with them to discuss
this matter personally with
them before you send anything to the Minister. While no one is in a
position to stop you should you proceed to seek Minister’s consent,
it would only be
reasonable to confer with the Marrones’ given that there are
clearly negative aspects to the rezoning plans. While others may
view it positively, from my
perspective and viewpoint, there are major issues which if not
considered and factored can prove costly to the Marrones’.
I do recall that during the meeting you did acknowledge that
compared to others, the Marrones’ are the most affected – this is a
compelling reason in itself for
you to hear from them, and for them to hear from you.
The plan is a non-starter without addressing the Marrones’ concerns
primarily because of the following reasons:
1) Access road. This is especially so given that you mentioned that
Beadell Street would be closed to use by those in the UE zone. Who
will build this
access road ? When will it be built ? The Marrones’ would be
landlocked. I recall that you were going to research and revert on
whether Council is
required to build access road given that the Rezoning Plan would
result in Marrones’ being landlocked.
2) Residential Zone Boundary. Another major contentious matter,
where it clearly benefits another but negatively impacts
Marrones’.
In summary, the main concerns were discussed during our meeting and
reiterated. Since the meeting however, the concerns I had then have
deepened.
As stated in our meeting, we recognise and appreciate that a lot of
work and effort has been expanded over the years in trying to
unlock value for landowners.
We sense that you too have an appreciation of our concerns.
The Marrones’ will be back mid next week, and I would like to
suggest a meeting on mid-morning of 28/11 or 30/11
Kind Regards,
Philip Kahlenberg
T | M | E
[email protected]
Marrone Fresh has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all its communications, including electronic
communications. If you have received this email in error please
contact
Marrone Fresh by immediately returning the email to
[email protected] and destroying the original. If this
communication is not intended for you and you are not an authorised
recipient
of this email you are prohibited by law from dealing with or
relying on the email or any file attachments. This prohibition
includes reading, printing, copying, re-transmitting,
disseminating, storing or in
any other way dealing or acting in reliance with this information.
This email may contain privileged client information. Thank you for
your co-operation.
PLEASE Think Before You Print - 1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree and
5.4kg CO2 in the atmosphere. 3 sheets of A4 paper = 1 litre of
water
From: Projects Marrone
To: 'Peter Jansen'
Cc: Tom Game
Subject: RE: Major Concerns on Direk RUAN Residential Rezoning
Plans
Importance: High
I appreciate very much you taking time to meet me.
As Tony and Maxine Marrone are away, I may also bring along one of
their children (fully involved in the family business) to be
meeting.
Kind Regards,
Philip Kahlenberg
T 61 | M | E
[email protected]
Attachment 2 -- Email dtd 16 Noe 2016 to Mr Jansen, Strategic
Planner, Salisbury Council
PrPro
PrPro
RuL
L O O
M A
P Sa
l/1 6
A dj
oi ns
M A
Zones
Rural (Aircraft Noise) Direk Industry and Residential Interface
City of Salisbury
Attachment D
Attachment 4 -- DPA Map Public Consultation June 2018
A105 -- Bounded in Red is Marrones Land. 18-58 Beadell St, Burton,
SA 5110
ahumphris
Line
ahumphris
Line
ahumphris
Line
ahumphris
Line
ahumphris
Line
ahumphris
Pencil
Page 128 City of Salisbury
Policy and Planning Committee Agenda - 20 August 2018
It em
1 .3
Attachment 5 -- DPA Version -- Post Public Consultation. Aug/Sep
2018
Attachment 6 DPA Map with Residential Rezoning 20-25 ANEF Council
needs to resubmit
1547 Marrone, Antonio & Immacolata
Letter to Chair - State Planning Commission
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6