Projects Marrone Friday, 28 February 2020 8:37 PM Chair ...
15
1 From: Projects Marrone Sent: Friday, 28 February 2020 8:37 PM To: [email protected]; DPTI:Planning Reform Submissions Subject: FW: Consultation on the Draft Planning and Design Code -- Appeal for Help -- Landlocked 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 20‐25 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, Philip Kahlenberg On behalf of Antonio and Immacolata Marrone , Burton T 61 8‐82809081 | | E [email protected]
Transcript of Projects Marrone Friday, 28 February 2020 8:37 PM Chair ...
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
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
