The shame of Constellation, Accolade & the local Government

[PaulG]

Received this after e-mailing the Development Assessment Panel council members:

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your email. As a member of the City of Onkaparinga Development Assessment Panel, consistent with legislative requirements, I am unable to comment on or discuss with parties a development application as an individual member of the Panel outside the forum of the Panel.

I have referred your correspondence to Council's administration for information and response. Please direct any further queries or comments regarding the proposal to Council's Development Services section.

Kind regards

Bill Coomans JP
Deputy Presiding Member
Onkaparinga Development Assessment Panel

[n4sir]

Unfortunately didn't get it here in Brissy....was looking forward to the report

ross

Only saw the fag end of it and to be honest what I saw seemed like pretty standard ACA fare. Good intent though.

If anyone wants to view the story, it's available on their website:
http://www.adelaideaca.com.au/story_det ... D=TWprNA==

Cheers,
Ian

Ps. In contrast to what I was told prior to the story airing, it doesn't mention exactly who removed the heritage listing.

[n4sir]

This response was at the other place:

I attempted to respond on the auswine forum to Ian's ps about who removed the heritage listing, but I don't have an account there. The only reference that I have been able to locate about the removal from the heritage list is what appeared in the agenda of the Development Assessment Panel meeting of 28 May 2009, which states in section 2.3;

"The subject site was previously identified on the State Heritage Register along with the main heritage buildings situated on the land located on the southern side of Reynell Road. In 2007 the site was removed from the register by the state government as it was identified as not having any buildings or items of state heritage significance."

So it would appear that the state government was presented with information that was less than complete, and while the words above are technically correct, they miss the point completely, because as has been discussed by others, it is the site that is significant, not what is ON it.

I wonder who prepared the submission to the government ??

Regards,
Grant

[n4sir]

Again, a post from the other place:

A re listing would solve the problem...

Hopefully there may be something in the wind.

Further to my observation about David Winderlich's concern about Stony Hill, I post the following link to his explanation and question raised in the SA Legislative Council yesterday, June 2nd. I would have posted his entire comments, but was unsure whether that would breach forum etiquette.

Ian kindly posted my other response to the auswine forum. Is it possible for someone to do the same with this.

http://hansard.parliament.sa.gov.au/pag ... 2&c=15&e=2

Regards,
Grant

[PaulG]

Recieved this today:

Thank you for your email in relation to the above matter. Council is currently considering a land division application (D339/08) 1 into 41 at 37-53 Reynell Road, Old Reynella at the site you refer to.

At its meeting held on 28 May 2009, Council’s Development Assessment Panel resolved to defer its decision on the application, as set out below:



That The Development Assessment Panel DEFER its decision on DA 145/D339/2008 to enable the applicant to provide the following further information:



· Clarification and justification of the proposed open space provision, with a view to seeking more of the prescribed 12.5% open space contribution as open space rather than a monetary contribution in lieu.



· Final clarification and engineering confirmation (such as more detailed plans) regarding the access/egress arrangements on Reynell Road, specifically that left in/left out and right in/right out movements are workable.



· Potential treatments of the interface between the existing termination of Phoenix Crescent and the new continuation of that road, such as traffic calming/slowing measures, minimal use of the existing Phoenix Crescent during construction, landscaping etc.



In accordance with Section 39 (3) (6) of the Development Act 1993, the information sought is to be provided within three (3) months.
------------------
and
------------
Further to the previously sent email I advise the following.

The application is currently scheduled to be further considered at an upcoming panel meeting on 25 June 2009, however timing of further consideration by the Panel is dependent upon the timing of a response from the applicant.
--------------------
P

[Scanlon]

A conversation with a friend of mine who use to work at onkaparinga council in the planning area - as this was a state heritage listed area, it's really up to the state to make the decision about reinstating the heritage mantle.

a search yields that the place to contact is here:

Heritage Branch
Department for Environment and Heritage
Ground Floor
1 Richmond Road
KESWICK SA 5035

GPO Box 1047
ADELAIDE SA 5001

Phone: (61 8124 4960
Email: heritage@saugov.sa.gov.au

For comments and suggestions relevant to the content of the State Heritage Areas of South Australia website email the Senior Heritage Interpretation Officer (ashworth.robyn@saugov.sa.gov.au) or forward letters to the above address.

The council has been presented with a petition with 91 signatures, but perhaps we could start a new one, as i was unaware of the one already submitted.

[phoenix]

A conversation with a friend of mine who use to work at onkaparinga council in the planning area - as this was a state heritage listed area, it's really up to the state to make the decision about reinstating the heritage mantle.

a search yields that the place to contact is here:

Heritage Branch
Department for Environment and Heritage
Ground Floor
1 Richmond Road
KESWICK SA 5035

GPO Box 1047
ADELAIDE SA 5001

Phone: (61 8124 4960
Email: heritage@saugov.sa.gov.au

For comments and suggestions relevant to the content of the State Heritage Areas of South Australia website email the Senior Heritage Interpretation Officer (ashworth.robyn@saugov.sa.gov.au) or forward letters to the above address.

The council has been presented with a petition with 91 signatures, but perhaps we could start a new one, as i was unaware of the one already submitted.

I was the instigator of that particular petition, which was prepared and submitted to council in order for it to be included in the documents that formed part of the Development Assessment Panel hearing.

This petition was prepared and the 91 signatures obtained and submitted to council within 2 days due to the very short time constraints.

Just as an indication of why things happened the way they did, under planning legislation, only residents within 60 metres of a category 2 application such as this are required to be formerly notified. We live about 100 metres away, so didn't receive formal notification.

Quite by chance, I was speaking to one of those who did receive notice, and immediately began the process to try and get some opposition mounted. This occurred on Easter Monday, and the closing of formal lodgement of documents was two days later, hence the importance of speed.

I agree completely that another petition should be started to enable as many people as possible to show their opposition. Equally as important is the lobbying of the various state and federal members of parliament, as well as the media. The 'A Current Affair' episode was a good start, but we should not let this issue lie.

As for the state government being responsible for removing the heritage listing, one has to ask the question, what information was supplied to the government in 2007 that caused its de-listing, and by whom.

The post that Ian submitted for me prior to my joining this forum about David Winderlich's question in parliament (above) hopefully will elicit some answers, hopefully before the site is turned into what Phillip White calls a "yuppy ghetto"

Keep up the good fight

Grant

[n4sir]

Thanks for the updates Grant & Sarah - maybe another petition would be a good idea.

I noticed in Philip White's latest blog he takes aim at the MVGWTA, accusing them of being too gutless to take on Constellation and scared that the dominant corporate will boycott buying the regions grapes. I have to admit I thought there would be more of an outcry from more of the industry about the demise of Stony Hill and Leasingham, particularly at a time when many are trying to promote wines overeas as something other than industrial swill to the sceptical:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2009/06/c ... s-box.html

Cheers,
Ian

[phoenix]

Following an email sent to the CEO of Onkaparinga Council, I received a letter in response. The following quote appears;

"Council's heritage advisor has visited the site and is of the opinion development of the site will not impact negatively on the state heritage items situated on the southern side of Reynell Road."

This completely fails to answer the question about the significance of Stony Hill itself, and may go some way to explain why the SA Govt delisted it. If they relied solely on this sort of advice, then one can hardly be surprised when the government accepts what the local custodians tell them. Perhaps its time that important issues about heritage are taken out of the hands of local government.

[n4sir]

Following an email sent to the CEO of Onkaparinga Council, I received a letter in response. The following quote appears;

"Council's heritage advisor has visited the site and is of the opinion development of the site will not impact negatively on the state heritage items situated on the southern side of Reynell Road."

This completely fails to answer the question about the significance of Stony Hill itself, and may go some way to explain why the SA Govt delisted it. If they relied solely on this sort of advice, then one can hardly be surprised when the government accepts what the local custodians tell them. Perhaps its time that important issues about heritage are taken out of the hands of local government.

I heard some internal mumblings among other Council's emails - as a planning issue it's a cut and tried issue unless the State Government (the very same useless pricks who removed the heritage listing) realise the mistake and replace the heritage listing. That's why my heart sank when I heard who removed it...

Cheers,
Ian

[n4sir]

This in the other place:

Adam,

A long-bow hypothetical. It's not going to happen but let's just suppose that James Packer buys the Romanee-Conti vineyard for a billion dollars to build a casino.

Would you be comfortable with that?

Cheers,

Roger

I wouldnt be "happy", but I would also accept that it is everyones commercial right to do so...

Are you serious Adam? How about this hypothetical then which cuts a lot closer to the bone:

A big company (for this exercise called NFI) buys Latour, Palmer, Beaucastel and the Arrogant Frog operations, all paid for by massive borrowings. At the time they say they have no plans for radical changes to be made because the businesses are so successful.

After the initial round of customary redundancies they put in place their plan - they double/triple the price of the existing wines of Latour/Palmer/Beaucastel (including their existing subsidiary labels) and introduce new lower price wines below them from the same houses. At the same time they increase the range and volume of the Arrogant Frog wines in a massive push to take market share from Yellowtail/Two Buck Chuck and the like. The plan is a monumental financial failure - the premium wines are seen to be overpriced and/or not the same quality as they used to be from their previous loyal buyer base, while there's too much (and better) competition for the Arrogant Frog range to succeed anywhere near their expectations.

To service their massive debt there are more redundancies, and a quarter of the Beaucastel vineyard is sold off for housing. Palmer isn't so lucky - they initially plan to sell off the Chateau and vineyard with the option of accessing the grapes for the label, which they will keep. Nobody's dumb enough to buy the assets on those conditions, although AXA is willing to buy the whole lot as a going concern. As a result of this stalemate, NFI then decide to sell off the entire Palmer vineyard to be bulldozed for more housing, while the Chateau will be turned into a gaudy hotel/casino/brothel - at the same time the existing back vintages of Palmer are then dumped as cleankins on the auction market for additional cash. New vintages of Palmer will be made at Latour's facilities using grapes from god knows where.

How could anyone possibly excuse this sort of behaviour, which at the very least seems incompetent and reckless?

Cheers,
Ian

Again...I think its pointless taking shots at and pushing Constellation...as far as I can read it, they have already signed a binding agreement to sell.

This agreement would most likely only be subject to planning approval...hence it is out of their control. They probably wont have any other way to back out unless that approval isnt received.

The only likely way to stop it happening is to prevent that planning approval from being achieved, eg attacking council etc.

Thats just how I read the story and could be completely wrong.

Oh, I think it very relevant to attack Constellation and the corporate attitude they have displayed in their treatment of their acquisitions in Australian viticulture and winemaking.

Its fine to attack them Davo, and they should be, but if you want to solve this issue, need to go hard on the council.

Agree, but the ba\$%#ds deserve every bit of disgust we can send in their direction.

Likewise I think it's very relevant for every wine lover to vent their spleen at Constellation and legally protest (vocally, sales boycott, etc) their disgusting actions.

I'm sick of these useless fudge packers making huge losses from stupid actions like in my above hypothetical (substitute a few names and you'll get the general idea - and NFI stands for No F*cking Idea for the uninitiated), and selling our industry's priceless assets to subsidise their blunders.

The point is any other country genuinely serious about their wine industry's heritage would be outraged. We shouldn't just bend over and take it silently and be too gutless to take on the major corporates and grocers who are only too willing to waltz in and rape and pillage when there's little to no resistance.

It's happened before when Fosters stripped Quelltaler to the bone and there was a massive outcry - when they sold off Seppeltsfield last year maybe they had that on their mind when people feared they would break it up, and instead of stripping the operation they actually made an effort to sell it whole and intact. Bravo to them, and brickbats to Constellation who seem to be to too precious and/or arrogant to make the effort to sell off Leasingham as a whole to someone who would ultimately make them look like the complete turkeys that they are...

Constellation are the new scum of the earth - they bought in here and hold absolutely nothing sacred, and despite guarantees of not changing anything, have through their greed managed to screw up everything they've meddled with. Until someone or some group stand up and say it's simply unacceptable they'll continue doing it, not only to their own detriment, but that of the whole Australian wine industry and especially those who are trying to promote our genuinely unique and special wines and vineyards the way the French do overseas. Would they stand for this?

My 2c,
Ian

[Sharkey]

Probably the only way to stop this particular development from happening is to petition the council. However I think the anger directed at Consellation is necessary and should be maintained. How else will they know that the public is not happy with their rape and pillage attitude and corporate greed?

Here is a list of Constellation’s Australian wine brands that I will no longer be buying.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni

Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

(Edit: removed Redman as per advice below)

[phoenix]

Probably the only way to stop this particular development from happening is to petition the council. However I think the anger directed at Consellation is necessary and should be maintained. How else will they know that the public is not happy with their rape and pillage attitude and corporate greed?

Here is a list of Constellation’s Australian wine brands that I will no longer be buying.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni
Redman
Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

Thanks for the list Sharkey, I have forwarded the link to this site to some friends OS who are also aware of this situation. We need to ensure that Constellation products are at the bottom of anyone's shopping list.

I know there are a number of excellent brands out there by wineries that haven't been swallowed up by the Constellation juggernaut, so I will be encouraging anyone who I speak with to consider these non-Constellation brands.

Trouble is, if they do too well, the juggernaut will roll over them as well.

Keep up the good fight
Grant

[n4sir]

Probably the only way to stop this particular development from happening is to petition the council. However I think the anger directed at Consellation is necessary and should be maintained. How else will they know that the public is not happy with their rape and pillage attitude and corporate greed?

Here is a list of Constellation’s Australian wine brands that I will no longer be buying.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni
Redman
Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

I think you can remove Redman from the list Sharkey - I'm pretty sure it's still owned and run by Bruce & Malcolm and only distributed by Constellation. That's what it still says on their website anyway (although it also looks like it hasn't been updated for some years...)

Cheers,
Ian

[Sharkey]

I think you can remove Redman from the list Sharkey - I'm pretty sure it's still owned and run by Bruce & Malcolm and only distributed by Constellation. That's what it still says on their website anyway (although it also looks like it hasn't been updated for some years...)

Cheers,
Ian

I think you're right. If anyone else has any other additions or deletions, just update the list.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni
Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

[Mahmoud Ali]

I've already made a boycott list that I plan to distribute at the stores that I will visit. My list came from the Constellation website and so it includes Redman. We don't get Redman here so it doesn't matter too much.

Cheers.................Mahmoud

[Wayno]

Probably the only way to stop this particular development from happening is to petition the council. However I think the anger directed at Consellation is necessary and should be maintained. How else will they know that the public is not happy with their rape and pillage attitude and corporate greed?

Here is a list of Constellation’s Australian wine brands that I will no longer be buying.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni

Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

(Edit: removed Redman as per advice below)

Good intentions, for sure and I commend it however the 0.1% or thereabouts of Australian drinkers that this forum and associated friends and family represents is not going to send much of a message to the global behemoth.

That said, as a moral stance, fair call.

EDIT: And to be honest, I doubt I personally would have bought many of them anyway, Reynella fiasco or not!!

[PaulG]

Well, it's a small positive in the scheme of things, but I've received confirmation that John Darley will be supporting the Democrats in their pursuit of this issue, although to save duplication of effort he will be more inclined to support them, rather than start a new himself.

Little things, but hopefully it does something!

[phoenix]

Well, it's a small positive in the scheme of things, but I've received confirmation that John Darley will be supporting the Democrats in their pursuit of this issue, although to save duplication of effort he will be more inclined to support them, rather than start a new himself.

Little things, but hopefully it does something!

If we can get lots of little things happening it may mean that a single big outcome can be achieved. Every little bit helps, and if John Darley is on-board then that will be a good thing.

He is a very intelligent person who knows how things work in government. As a former valuer-general, he knows his stuff.

[phoenix]

I'm not sure if you had heard yet, but the Onkaparinga Council DAP meeting agenda for the meeting on the 25th June is available on the Onkaparinga web site

The developers response to the three issues raisedby the DAP last month were;

* Confirmation of full traffic movement from Reynell Road, ie left/right in and out.
Reynell Road is council controlled and DTEI have no control over Reynell Road or the proposed junction

* Provision of extra open space
No

* Suitable treatment of the interface between the old and new
We don't believe that control measures are required, but here is sketch of a proposed link

This was going to be Devine's response all along, and in the agenda to the meeting, the following recommendations are made;

6. Recommendation
That the Development Assessment Panel:
1. RESOLVE that the proposed development is not seriously at variance with the provisions of the Development Plan;
2. RESOLVE to GRANT Development Plan Consent to Development Application 145/D339/2008 for land division 1 into 41 at 37-53 Reynell Road, OLD REYNELLA SA 5161, subject to the following conditions and advisory notes

[phoenix]

The Independent Weekly has now published an article. I would post the link, but I haven't been a member here long enough. If you do a Google search on "independent weekly stony hill vineyard" (with the quotes), you should find it.

Thursday is decision day. Hopefully sanity will prevail, although when you are relying on a council that was unaware of the existence of the John Reynell memorial on the northern side of Panalatinga Creek, which the Onkaparinga Council themselves constructed, and who chose to sever the link to the heritage Chateau Reynella buildings on the southern side of Reynell Road in 2007, I'm not holding out much hope from this can't do council. In the words of Leon Bignell, Onkaparinga Council is making history history.

[PaulG]

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/new ... 44781.aspx for those who can't be bothered searching.

To be completely honest, I don't think the council have much choice but to approve the redevelopment. They aren't a heritage body. They therefore need to assess the application against the criteria that are set by them by the relevant statute/regulations.

Chances are, this land will meet those requirements.

The real antagonist in this was the heritage committee that removed its protected status.

[phoenix]

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/death-knell-for-historic-reynella-vineyard/1544781.aspx for those who can't be bothered searching.

To be completely honest, I don't think the council have much choice but to approve the redevelopment. They aren't a heritage body. They therefore need to assess the application against the criteria that are set by them by the relevant statute/regulations.

Chances are, this land will meet those requirements.

The real antagonist in this was the heritage committee that removed its protected status.

Unfortunately you are correct when you say that the DAP has no choice but to approve the application based on the current legislation.

The damage was done by council in 2007, when someone stuffed up by severing the link between the two locations, not realising exactly what they had done. This has left today's council with no choice in the matter. Having said that, council's heritage advisors continue with the line that Stony Hill is not worthy of listing, so I can see why the stuff up occurred back then.

Seems to me that council need to get some different heritage advisors before some other irreplacable part of our past disappears under concrete and asphalt.

[James Douglas Hook]

Very depressed think about the $6.3 Million pay out for removed CW US executive...

They need to sell another 3x Stony Hills to pay for that...

[platinum]

Probably the only way to stop this particular development from happening is to petition the council. However I think the anger directed at Consellation is necessary and should be maintained. How else will they know that the public is not happy with their rape and pillage attitude and corporate greed?

Here is a list of Constellation’s Australian wine brands that I will no longer be buying.

Amberley Estate
Banrock Station
Barossa Valley Estate
Bay of Fires
Berri Estates
Brookland Valley
Chateau Reynella
Emu Wines
Goundrey
Hardys
Houghton
Kellys Revenge
Knife & Fork
Leasingham
Moondah Brook
Omni

Renmano
Stanley Wines
Starvedog Lane
Stonehaven
Tintara
Yarra Burn

(Edit: removed Redman as per advice below)

.

EDIT: And to be honest, I doubt I personally would have bought many of them anyway, Reynella fiasco or not!!

Me too, thats a pretty average portfollio of winery's to own in my book. Houghton is one thats in my cellar and Bay of Fires is up and coming as is Tasmania in general but plenty there arent worth much salt.

[bob parsons]

I've already made a boycott list that I plan to distribute at the stores that I will visit. My list came from the Constellation website and so it includes Redman. We don't get Redman here so it doesn't matter too much.

Cheers.................Mahmoud

Thats funny, wonder how many Constellation wines you were knocking back at the recent Fresco do on 104th St. here in town?

[Mahmoud Ali]

Bob,

I don't think any of the wines on the "Boycott List" were served that afternoon. If Constellation owns other wineries that are not on the list then I'm not aware of it.

Cheers....................Mahmoud.

[n4sir]

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/death-knell-for-historic-reynella-vineyard/1544781.aspx for those who can't be bothered searching.

To be completely honest, I don't think the council have much choice but to approve the redevelopment. They aren't a heritage body. They therefore need to assess the application against the criteria that are set by them by the relevant statute/regulations.

Chances are, this land will meet those requirements.

The real antagonist in this was the heritage committee that removed its protected status.

Unfortunately you are correct when you say that the DAP has no choice but to approve the application based on the current legislation.

The damage was done by council in 2007, when someone stuffed up by severing the link between the two locations, not realising exactly what they had done. This has left today's council with no choice in the matter. Having said that, council's heritage advisors continue with the line that Stony Hill is not worthy of listing, so I can see why the stuff up occurred back then.

Seems to me that council need to get some different heritage advisors before some other irreplacable part of our past disappears under concrete and asphalt.

As I mentioned before, unfortunately I got the feeling there wasn't a heck of a lot the DAP could do because the heritage listing was removed, and perhaps not surprisingly various government departments appear only too willing to handball the issue to each other while the bulldozers are warming up...

The other thing that really bothers me is the complete lack of public commentary and apparent interest by the wine industry, and to be honest the media about this issue and the demise of Leasingham. If the governing bodies have their heads in the sand, the politicians hope it goes away, and the media doesn't take up the cause to make them accountable, the situation doesn't look good.

Cheers,
Ian

[James Douglas Hook]

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/death-knell-for-historic-reynella-vineyard/1544781.aspx for those who can't be bothered searching. quote]

The other thing that really bothers me is the complete lack of public commentary and apparent interest by the wine industry, and to be honest the media about this issue and the demise of Leasingham. If the governing bodies have their heads in the sand, the politicians hope it goes away, and the media doesn't take up the cause to make them accountable, the situation doesn't look good.

Cheers,
Ian

I guess history doesn't sell papers and make good online content.

It is very sad that the situation get like this. Other than the Independent Weekly in SA I haven't seen anything else on this other than the TV's 'A Current Affair.'

Has Wine Business Monthly covered it? They are usually pretty up to date. ABC radio is usually good to but I haven't been listening lately because of work.

What little media coverage there has been is due to the help of the very farmer friendly and media mindered McLaren Vale MP, Leon Bignell, plus journo Philip White, who is carrying on the torch of Greg Trott, who was always into protecting history.

Without those two I doubt any of this would have raised an eyebrow in the wine media.

[James Douglas Hook]

http://jameshookwine.blogspot.com/2009/ ... egion.html