The Auswine Forum

Wine regions protection passes Parliament
ABC News 2/11/2012
Updated 1 hour 15 minutes ago

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-02/w ... section=sa

Legislation aimed at protecting the Barossa and McLaren Vale regions from urban sprawl has passed the South Australian Parliament.

The character preservation legislation covers 40,000 hectares of agricultural land just south of Adelaide and almost 150,000 hectares in the Barossa Valley.

It removes the planning minister's power to approve major developments without parliamentary scrutiny.

Grape grower Dudley Brown was instrumental in pushing for change.

"I think if you're an agriculture producer anywhere within two or three hours of a city if you're not looking at legislation like this to protect your agricultural areas you won't be in business in 25 years," he said.

Liberal MP Ivan Venning, whose electorate takes in the Barossa, is pleased any residential subdivisions in the two wine regions will now need full parliamentary approval.

"Nobody disagrees with that, particularly when you see what happened with Mount Barker [development]," he said.

"The Government, you've got to realise, only two or three years ago had a 30-year plan and they envisaged an increase in population to the Barossa of 100,000. Now they've woken up to that are going to put these restrictions on."

Mr Venning said the lengthy debate had led to some problems in the Barossa.

"It really did cause some pain in the Barossa because people that were in the middle of getting approval for development were stopped and there are several developers, particularly one called Tanunda East, it was all stopped," he said.

SA Planning Minister John Rau said passage of the legislation was welcome.

"A line in the sand has now been drawn on Adelaide's urban sprawl," he said.

"We will now not have councils, developers, landowners or even ministers for planning subdividing land without full parliamentary approval in the Barossa or McLaren Vale.

"This legislation secures the Barossa and McLaren Vale regions for generations to enjoy."

Ian and others,

Anyone remember when there used to be vineyards next to South Rd before you went up Flagstaff Hill?

My own developement gripe in the area (not directly vineyard related) occurred when the Southern Expressway was put in. The first of my forebears to come to Adelaide arrived in 1839 and built a beautiful stone cottage, not far from where the Noarlunga Centre is now. Unfortunately that was demolished in the name of progress as it was in the way of the expressway. My great great uncle would probably be turning in his grave, along with all the other relatives scattered in various cemeteries south of Adelaide

Living in Melbourne, I didn't find out about it until it was all gone. I had two elderly spinster great aunts who were living in the house at the time and they had to move out. Made the local rag but that was about it, all very unseemly.

cheers, Malcolm

Legislation to protect agricultural regions of McLaren Vale, Barossa Valley from urban sprawl now in place
Brad Crouch
The Advertiser
January 18, 2013 4:47PM

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6556927334

NEW laws that come into force today will protect McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley from urban sprawl through subdivision of land in the regions.

The laws protect land traditionally used for agriculture from being broken up for housing developments and shopping malls.

Planning Minister John Rau said the legislation had the multiple benefits of stopping urban sprawl by 'bookending' Adelaide, protecting the character of the two regions, and providing a valuable marketing tool for the regions' industries.

"We didn't want urban sprawl from Port Wakefield to Victor Harbor with its associated infrastructure problems," Mr Rau said.

"So when people like Jan Angus, d'Arry Osborn, Marg Lehman, Maggie Beer and the like were agitating to protect the character of the Barossa and McLaren Vale we could quickly see the dual benefits for Adelaide as well as those regions," he said.

"The State Government knows the importance of these regions for South Australia, particulary through tourism.

"We could not allow them to fall victim to the urban sprawl of a growing city."

State MP for Mawson, representing the McLaren Vale area, Leon Bignell likened the move to the protection given to the famous wine producing region Napa Valley in California and to Adelaide's parklands.

"Napa Valley would now be like Silicon Valley if it had not received protection," Mr Bignell said.

" In years to come people will look back and thank the people who had the vision to lobby government for this protection, just as they thank Col Light for the parklands."

d'Arry Osborn of d'Arenberg Wines said the protection gave him peace of mind, knowing the McLaren Vale will continue as a famous wine and tourism region close to Adelaide, rather than being swallowed up in Adelaide's suburban sprawl.

Hmmm. sounds like an election is coming soon in SA.

crusty2 wrote:Hmmm. sounds like an election is coming soon in SA.

March 2014 Phill, unfortunately another year of forelock tugging and navel gazing.
What will we have to show for it, a half arsed tram, half arsed express way, a full arsed Adelaide oval which wont be full of all the Pommies the Cricket Association was hoping for, for the "grand opening " because of the high dollar and a reduced capacity hospital which my grandchildren will still be paying off!!

Oh and how could I forget...a mothballed desal plant, in the driest state in the driest continent??
12 plus years of labour misery...not that Izzy will come up with much.

Cheers Craig.

phillisc wrote:

crusty2 wrote:Hmmm. sounds like an election is coming soon in SA.

March 2014 Phill, unfortunately another year of forelock tugging and navel gazing.
What will we have to show for it, a half arsed tram, half arsed express way, a full arsed Adelaide oval which wont be full of all the Pommies the Cricket Association was hoping for, for the "grand opening " because of the high dollar and a reduced capacity hospital which my grandchildren will still be paying off!!

Oh and how could I forget...a mothballed desal plant, in the driest state in the driest continent??
12 plus years of labour misery...not that Izzy will come up with much.

Cheers Craig.

Perhaps you should post that sort of rant in The Australian

Hardly a rant Daz , and would not want to give the liberal OZ any more ammo.

SA like a number of other states is in an absolute mess; where monies have been spent is so wide of the mark and now a Premier who thinks he can control BHP and Holdens...get on with providing enough money for teachers, nurses, police etc...but no votes in that.
We spend money here on a logo that makes us the front door to the country...WTF!! more like the door to the out house.
I am just thankful that there are a few areas of the state that the current government government has not stuffed up.
We have a premier promoting us as the wine state...but only a select few are in the know...go figure??
Don't know what will happen in September but fairly sure that it will be a whitewash in SA next March...people want change...12 years of labour is too long...but the change may not be any better. Bit like the last few months of federal liberal where Johnny was a dead man walking...the current mob in charge here in SA are a bunch of muppets

How's it all going in sunny Queensland
Cheers
Craig.

daz wrote:

phillisc wrote:

crusty2 wrote:Hmmm. sounds like an election is coming soon in SA.

March 2014 Phill, unfortunately another year of forelock tugging and navel gazing.
What will we have to show for it, a half arsed tram, half arsed express way, a full arsed Adelaide oval which wont be full of all the Pommies the Cricket Association was hoping for, for the "grand opening " because of the high dollar and a reduced capacity hospital which my grandchildren will still be paying off!!

Oh and how could I forget...a mothballed desal plant, in the driest state in the driest continent??
12 plus years of labour misery...not that Izzy will come up with much.

Cheers Craig.

Perhaps you should post that sort of rant in The Australian

You forgot to mention the changes we are making to South Rd on the Superway Project!!!

Seriously, the tram is better, the Southern Expressway will be duplicated, Adelaide Oval will be better and the desal plant will be required at some stage. There are some positives. Not to mention that 2012 was a great year!!!

phillisc wrote:Hardly a rant Daz , and would not want to give the liberal OZ any more ammo.

SA like a number of other states is in an absolute mess; where monies have been spent is so wide of the mark and now a Premier who thinks he can control BHP and Holdens...get on with providing enough money for teachers, nurses, police etc...but no votes in that.
We spend money here on a logo that makes us the front door to the country...WTF!! more like the door to the out house.
I am just thankful that there are a few areas of the state that the current government government has not stuffed up.
We have a premier promoting us as the wine state...but only a select few are in the know...go figure??
Don't know what will happen in September but fairly sure that it will be a whitewash in SA next March...people want change...12 years of labour is too long...but the change may not be any better. Bit like the last few months of federal liberal where Johnny was a dead man walking...the current mob in charge here in SA are a bunch of muppets

How's it all going in sunny Queensland
Cheers
Craig.

Agree the Federal election will see a change of government. Queensland isn't exactly going gangbusters either with unemployment on the rise, possibly partly due to a reduced public service, some privatisations also looking ironically likely or already announced.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/b8z2aXs.jpg[/img]

This story ran on Today Tonight last night:
https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stor ... ella-fight

So history has repeated and the inevitable has happened, the rest of Chateau Reynella, the first winery in South Australia, the Cellar One Cave, the hundred plus year old vineyards being the original source of the Reynella Cabernet Sauvignon clone, will be bulldozed for mass development.

This has been on the cards ever since the state government removed the heritage listing over the whole site in 2007 to allow the smaller Stony Hill Vineyard the other side of Reynell road (circled in the above picture) to be demolished and developed by Pioneer homes. Accolade (ie. Private Equity investors Champ) who bought out Constellation patiently waited for the dust to settle on that one, and then quiety repeated the process for the rest of the place: mothballed the winery and processing plant, neglected the vineyard, sold the site to a developer, then as a bonus sold the whole company with the new owners to cop the flak when all this came to light. Congratualtions Champ, mission accomplished.

In another time, another place, another dimension, Cheateau Reynella could have been another Penfolds Magill Estate, like Lafite is to Latour, but corporate greed and politics has consigned it to the bin for a future generation of Grant Camerons to reflect on the loss of a key piece of South Australian (and Australian Wine Industry) history. Given that the previous SA Government also deliberately left them out of the McLaren Vale urban sprawl protection zone, you can safely bet that sometime in the future Glenthorne Farm at O'Halloran Hill will become a massive housing estate (as soon as prominent objector Philip White falls off the perch) and the Marion Vineyard at Oaklands Park will go the same way when someone decides that a few million dollars for a cash sale (plus millions in house rates) is worth more than keeping it.

There's a petition below for anyone interested, but after last time I don't see it going anywhere - like before, the key decision makers have already positioned themselves. The Onkaparinga Council has already approved it before anyone interested in protecting the site found out what was going on, and the sitting MP Nat Cook's office has already stated Reynella has "no historical value". Again, not a peep from the MVGWTA who you think has the most face to lose.

Petition: https://tinyurl.com/y94cszhb
More info: https://tinyurl.com/yajxvbl7

Cheers,
Ian

That is a blooming outrage... I signed the petition though I am sure you are right and by now it is too late.

"and the sitting MP Nat Cook's office has already stated Reynella has "no historical value"."... more historical value than this joker's political career.

Maybe an unpopular opinion here but when it comes to private property I think very seldomly should the public be able to dictate how it is used. If the public or members of the public wanted this kept as a vinyard well then maybe they should stump up the cash to do so. A bunch of us could have pooled our money and bought it. Why didnt we?

It's an interesting challenge Cactus. It really comes down to how much Australia values its history and culture. If they decided to knock down Don Bradman's birthplace then I'm sure there would be uproar. However there is a track record of money trumping protection, especially if there are attractive deposits that mining companies want, or a property developer talks up a massive deal. The upside is the lower restrictions on businesses and individuals, which does give a little competitive advantage.

Over here there appears to be much stronger protection of history, and of places of special cultural or scientific interest, plus there is also UNESCO recognition, which can be a massive help. An example is protected status recently given to some post war pubs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-44168220. In addition We still get some rogue councils almost certainly taking bribes to push through planning permission that should never occur, but difficult to put a precise figure on it, but I suspect more sporadic than endemic.

It is right to call politicians out on such lies. "No historical value" is clearly nonsense and they should be called on that lie (or their ignorance - it's one of the two).

If private property were to be the paramount consideration in all matters then there would be no need for heritage listings nor any restriction on what could or couldn't be built on it. We could also forget about infrastructure projects and municipal planning.

It is a balance. I think for instance something like Penn Station in NY it is a great shame that that was bulldozed. So i dont 100% agree with my own comment. Part being provacative. Perhaps the answer is when we put heritage listing on something then it should be rare but the publci should pay real cash money as compensation for that.

Cactus wrote:Maybe an unpopular opinion here but when it comes to private property I think very seldomly should the public be able to dictate how it is used. If the public or members of the public wanted this kept as a vinyard well then maybe they should stump up the cash to do so. A bunch of us could have pooled our money and bought it. Why didnt we?

Hey Cactus

I don't think this would necessarily be an unpopular opinion here, but I disagree (amiably) with you.

Why didn't we? Because as individuals it is often difficult to see the common good. Because as individuals we might not have the resources to do what is required to do what is in our common interest. Because vested (private) interests that seek to make profit outweigh/outgun in the short term what in the long run might save a place, a space, our planet.

We have government for a reason. As George Kostanza would say: "we're living in a society here!".

Cheers

Michael

Cactus wrote:If the public or members of the public wanted this kept as a vinyard well then maybe they should stump up the cash to do so. A bunch of us could have pooled our money and bought it. Why didnt we?

The smaller Stony Hill vineyard (circled in the above picture) was sold off to Pioneer Homes around ten years ago for $3.8M. I would have a rough guess the land value of the rest of Reynella would have been upwards of $30M - I'm not too sure crowdfunding would get remotely close to generating that kind of money to save it...

Plus as you may have already realised reading the thread, there are way too many vested interests involved to stop the destruction from happening. By the time anyone outside of the loop got wind of this, contracts had already been signed and approvals given. We basically had zero chance, even if we did have that kind of money to buy it.

Money rules all folks. Nothing new.
All a bit sad.
Grew up in the area. My folks still live within a stones throw of the circled area.
Used to duck thru the old vines as a kid all the time. A shame to think it'll be gone.
A really unique site. 1844 and we're bulldozing it now?
Cue Derryn Hinch; Shame shame shame.

No secret it was kept as quiet as possible. Can't stop progress once the relevant paperwork is signed/approved.
Where's Dennis Denuto when you need him?

At least they're keeping the heritage listed buildings.
Hope they keep the giant birdhouse too.

Anyone got any info on this beyond the TT report? As I understand it, Stony Hill was ripped out on the pretext that the vines were unhealthy, with the claim at the time that the larger vineyards on the other side of the road were the important ones.
Now the argument is that it was Stony Hill that had the greatest historical value, so it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of them.
As far as I'm concerned remnant vineyards in suburban areas are rare as hen's teeth globally and should be protected on that basis alone - and that's leaving aside the association with Chateau Reynella.