Strategic Directions Report
Background Papers 2013
Contents:
1. Housing and Settlements
1.1 Concordia and Kalbeeba urban growth opportunities
1.2 Townships
1.3 Rural living opportunities
1.4 Affordable housing
2. Economy and Jobs
2.1 Activity centres, commercial and mixed use development
2.2 Industry
2.3 Tourism
3. Heritage and Character
3.1 Character
3.2 Heritage
4. Rural Areas
5. Hazards
6. Landscape, Interface and Natural Resources
6.1 Open space
6.2 Buffer and interface policies
6.3 Biodiversity
6.4 Sustainable and renewable energy generation
6.5 Water
7. Transport and Infrastructure
7.1 Transport
7.2 Infrastructure
8. Administrative
Table of Acronyms
2
22
42
54
65
69
82
87
92
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
1. Housing and Settlements
1.1 Concordia and Kalbeeba urban growth opportunities
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
New transit corridors, growth areas, transit-oriented developments and activity centres: New
metropolitan and township growth areas
Policy 32 Ensure new urban growth occurs in designated urban and township expansion areas shown on
Map D7. This map shows the indicative areas of land that will be considered for urban growth. The
actual boundaries of land will be identified for public consultation when the process of updating the
relevant Development Plan is undertaken
Policy 33 Provide sufficient other new growth areas for a 25-year rolling supply of land, of which 15
years is zoned for urban development.
Policy 35 Base the planning of greenfield growth areas on the principles of self-contained, mixed-use
development that is contiguous to transport services where possible.
Target P Plan for strategic new growth areas ... including the 25 per cent buffer identified in Target R
... These areas include: ... Concordia
1|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The planning strategy envisages future urban development in the Concordia and Kalbeeba locality comprising approx. 500 ha of land included
within the urban boundary on 20 December 2007 (the “2007 extension area”) and a “Long-term urban growth area” of approx. 450 ha. No
areas in this location are designated as “Growth areas – 15 years zoned supply”.
Extract of Map E6A contained in 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide
In terms of priority for rezoning and development the 2007 extension area is given no specific status, being shown on Maps D7, E6 and E6A as
within the “Planned urban lands to 2038” boundary (the “urban boundary”) between the “Built-up areas” at Gawler and the long-term urban
growth area. The growth area itself is regarded as “16-30 years supply – this land will be prioritised for rezoning as the 15 year land supply is
utilised”.
2|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Housing and Employment Land Supply Program Report 2010, Greater Adelaide and 2012 monitoring report
The Housing and Employment Land Supply Program Report 2010, Greater Adelaide (HELSP report) does not identify Concordia as a key site
around Gawler for rezoning, with the only priority land parcels being Evanston Gardens, Evanston South, Gawler East and Roseworthy West.
Neither the 2007 extension area nor the Concordia future urban growth area is included in an indicative rezoning schedule for growth areas.
The status for Concordia remains unchanged in the recently released HELSP Greater Adelaide 2012 monitoring report.
Source: The Barossa Council GIS
3|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Structure planning and rezoning of 2007 extension area at Concordia and adjacent growth area
The HELSP report shows two “Future growth areas” in the Concordia and Kalbeeba locality, one comprising the combined 2007 extension area
and Concordia growth area (which Council calculates to be approx. 750 ha in area), the other comprising the smaller area at Kalbeeba
comprising the developed rural living zoned land and adjacent primary production zoned land (approx. 72 ha in total)1. It further identifies the
2007 extension area located “immediately east of the Gawler township, at Concordia” as “awaiting rezoning”2. The report also regards the
2007 extension area as part of 978 ha of “Future growth areas (Prior to the Plan) or being within “Future growth areas”3.
The report advises that growth areas will require both structure planning and rezoning4, but indicates that structure planning for the 445 ha
Concordia growth area should take place prior to and separate from the 2007 extension area, with the timing of a DPA for the growth area,
presumably for rezoning, being “20014-15 to 2018-19” 5. No direction is given in respect to the need for, nor timing of, structure planning for
the 2007 extension area.
The HELSP recommendation that structure planning only be undertaken for portion on the growth area is considered an oversight as it is in
contrast to the State government’s original intent when it established the “Gawler/Roseworthy/Concordia State Significant Area” (SSA) in late
2009 where structure planning for the broader region was to be undertaken. It is noted that little progress was made on that structure plan
with attention only directed to only one portion of the SSA at Roseworthy.
Structure planning for the broader area is vital in order to inform future strategic directions and decision making, especially decisions
regarding ongoing primary production and associated development until the land is required for urban development. There is little sense in
undertaking structure planning of the Concordia ‘township’ area in isolation of adjacent areas including the “Gawler Buffer” (see below), the
2007 extension area, existing urban development, active primary production areas and the new adjacent character preservation district.
Any structure planning also needs to consider important elements which impact on the 2007 extension area and Concordia growth area such as
the “Potential North East Bypass around Gawler”6 as the nature of that road will drive the style of development of the area, with a four lane
1
Map 3.29
Section 3.5.1.2 (Land supply: Broadacre land supply: Land to be rezoned)
3
Tables 3.6 and 3.35
4
Section 3.7.6.4 (Land supply – broadacre land) and Table 3.35
5
Table 3.37
6
Map D15
2
4|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
limited access road driving different outcomes from a two lane collector with direct access. A structure planning exercise should also review
the ‘edge planning’ concept in British Columbia, Canada which is a successful tool to manage the interface ‘edge’ between urban development
and primary production, and incorporate appropriate principles to guide the long term edge between the Concordia growth area and the
adjacent character preservation district and ongoing primary production.
Direction is also required on the nature of development within the Concordia long term growth area. The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
consultation report published in January 2010 indicated that in response to submissions regarding population growth and the need for adequate
buffering between townships, the Concordia growth area had been reduced from around 1900 Ha in the draft Plan to a total of around 450 ha,
reducing the potential population in the new urban area proposed for Concordia (at the end of the 30 years of the Plan) from around 26,000
people to around 6,000 people. Council estimates the spatial extent of the combined growth area and the 2007 extension area would
accommodate approx. 21,000 persons, well in excess of the planning strategy estimate.
Structure planning and rezoning of the 2007 extension area at Kalbeeba
The Kalbeeba portion of the 2007 extension area (south of Barossa Valley Way) differs from the Concordia portion to the north in that it
contains an existing rural living area and adjacent primary production land.
There is no need to rezone the primary production portion of this area at this stage given the large “Springwood” development at Gawler East;
however there may be justification to intensify the rural living area in the short term. This may result in the current zoning remaining, but the
minimum lot size being reduced to facilitate minor infill development. While structure planning should be a pre-requisite to any change to
policies for this area, the level of required investigations for the rural living area is less than for the primary production portion, with
particular focus on drainage, stormwater and waste water management.
5|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Source: The Barossa Council GIS
Green belt
The planning strategy proposes a green belt forming part of the “Greater Adelaide Open Space System”. Map E6A more clearly defines the
extent of this open space area, showing the “Proposed Green belt between Gawler and Concordia” comprising portion of the 2007 extension
area and extending along either side of the Barossa Valley Way to the edge of the urban boundary.
The planning strategy contains no detail regarding the purpose of the green belt or the intended procedure to implement the green belt,
except to show it as being part of the Metropolitan Open Space System which implies that it would become public land. Further investigation
and clarification is required to address the fact that it covers private land, of which the majority is already developed and used for a variety of
purposes including primary production and rural living style development.
6|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Questions include – is it partly to act as a green belt between Gawler and a future township at Concordia, partly to protect view lines along the
Barossa Valley Way, or is the intent for the long term restoration of this land to pre-development conditions? Will the government gradually
acquire land and progressively demolish buildings and convert it to open space or restore the land to primary production? The boundary
definition is also unclear, where in some cases the boundary follows cadastral boundaries but in others it appears to follow ridgelines.
Direction is also needed as to what development can occur within the area in the interim, particularly if the area is to be acquired and
developed as open space.
Existing Development Plan policies
With the exception of the existing rural living area at Kalbeeba, the 2007 extension area and growth area is currently in the Primary Production
Zone and Precinct 5 Concordia. The precinct is the only rural area where creation of additional lots is a merit form of development, provided
additional lots are at least 40 ha. Realignment of boundaries is also merit provided the number of lots below 32 ha is not increased. Policies
relating to intensive forms of primary production are more restrictive than in other precincts and will be discussed elsewhere.
Specific land owner requests to increase development potential
Over the past years Council has received numerous requests from owners in the Kalbeeba and Concordia areas to either rezone land to allow
residential or rural living development or to relax existing rural living policies to facilitate smaller lots for minor infill development. The level
of interest has increased since the 2007 extension area was included in the urban boundary and since commencement of the “Springwood”
development at Gawler East.
Requests to rezone land from Rural Living or Primary Production to a zone which allows residential development have come from owners both
within and outside the urban boundary. Despite the planning strategy envisaging intensification of existing rural living areas and designation of
new rural living areas, the new character preservation legislation provides that land divisions for residential development within the rural areas
within the district must be refused, and that existing minimum lot sizes in designated rural living areas will prevail, preventing intensification
of these areas without legislative change. Accordingly, Council cannot entertain any requests for rezoning or a change to land division policies
outside the urban boundary.
However as discussed above, opportunity exists to explore the potential for infill development within the existing rural living area at Kalbeeba
“West” as that area is excluded from the district.
7|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Strategic directions




Structure planning for the Gawler/Roseworthy/Concordia SSA is required to inform future strategic directions and decision making, and to
guide decisions regarding ongoing primary production and associated development until the land is required for urban development. This
structure planning should be progressed immediately as previously committed to by the State government.
Structure planning should review the potential to incorporate the ‘edge planning’ concept as a tool to manage the long term interface
‘edge’ between future urban development, the adjacent character preservation district, and ongoing primary production.
Direction is required from the State government as to the purpose of the proposed “green belt” and the intended procedure to implement
the buffer. This may lead to a need to review policies within the affected area to protect the long term intent.
Subject to infrastructure capacity and constraints, potential exists for minor infill development within the rural living area at Kalbeeba
located within the urban boundary.

Possible amendments or action
Undertake structure planning for the
Gawler/Roseworthy/Concordia State
Significant Area as previously committed to
by the State government, including
potential adoption of ‘edge planning’
principles.
Subject to infrastructure capacity and
constraints, provide for infill development
within the Rural Living Zone, Precinct 26
Kalbeeba West through a reduced minimum
lot size.
Amend policies for land proposed to be
included in “green belt” when intent of
buffer and intended implementation
program is confirmed by the State
government.
Possible DPA or project
Collaborate with DPTI,
adjoining councils and other
key stakeholders regarding
structure planning for the
area.
Priority
2013/14
Kalbeeba Infill DPA
2013/14
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
8|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
1.2 Townships
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Housing mix, affordability and competitiveness
Policy 3 Integrate a mixture of competitive housing styles, types and densities into the wider housing
market, including medium-density low-rise and attached dwellings.
Policy 4 Ensure Structure Plans and Development Plans reflect the definition of low-, medium- and
high-density housing ... and the definitions of low-, medium- and high-rise development...
Policy 6 Ensure Structure Plans and Development Plans provide for new retirement housing and
residential aged care facilities, and protect and allow for appropriate redevelopment of such existing
facilities. This will increase the opportunities for older people to remain living in and connected to
their communities as their needs for support increase.
Policy 9 Identify sufficient land for residential purposes to lock in a 25-year rolling supply of land in
both the established areas and new growth areas (the 25-year rolling supply recognises the long lead
times associated with bringing land to market).
Policy 10 Identify, through the Housing and Employment Land Supply Program, the total amount of land
needed and set annual rolling targets to reflect changes in the market and changes to the rate of
population growth
9|Page
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
New transit corridors, growth areas, transit-oriented developments and activity centres: New
metropolitan and township growth areas
Policy 32 Ensure new urban growth occurs in designated urban and township expansion areas shown on
Map D7. This map shows the indicative areas of land that will be considered for urban growth. The
actual boundaries of land will be identified for public consultation when the process of updating the
relevant Development Plan is undertaken.
Policy 33 Provide sufficient other new growth areas for a 25-year rolling supply of land, of which 15
years is zoned for urban development.
Policy 41 Maintain the distinct scale, character and heritage of townships not identified for urban
expansion by encouraging development that recognises and complements their various roles and
functions.
Communities and social inclusion
Policy 6 …. Planning policies should encourage new models of service provision that allow people to
remain living in their community throughout their life.
Urban Design
Policy 12 Develop and promote a distinctive range of building typologies for residential housing
density, which responds to metropolitan Adelaide's existing character and climate.
Map D7 (Urban expansion priorities) and Map E6 (Barossa directions) in the planning strategy show Angaston, Nuriootpa, Lyndoch, Mount
Pleasant and Williamstown as being within the “Planned urban lands to 2038”. Eden Valley, Moculta, Sandy Creek, Springton and Stockwell are
shown on Map E6. Neither Bethany, Krondorf, Light Pass nor Rosedale are shown on any map within the planning strategy.
10 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Character preservation legislation
All towns and settlements with the exception of Bethany and Krondorf are classified as a “township” in the context of the Character
Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 and the associated Barossa Valley District plan (GP 4 of 2012 plan). Bethany and Krondorf are not
individually recognised. The township boundaries on the Barossa Valley District plan include rural living zoned areas adjacent to Angaston,
Tanunda, Lyndoch, Eden Valley and Williamstown.
Existing Development Plan policies
The three major townships of Angaston, Nuriootpa and Tanunda are zoned in a traditional manner comprising a mixture of zones such as
Residential, Commercial and Light Industry. Bethany, Krondorf, Light Pass and Rosedale are within the Settlement Zone. All other townships
within the Township Zone with overlaying policy areas for Residential, Light Industry, Recreation etc applying in Lyndoch, Mount Pleasant and
Williamstown.
With the exception of Bethany and Krondorf, each township is shown on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps as “Area
Excluded from District”. This approach appears at odds character preservation legislation where the townships are included within the Barossa
Valley District.
Structure/concept planning for long term development
As discussed in the separate rural living section inclusion of rural living areas adjacent to Angaston, Tanunda, Eden Valley, Lyndoch and
Williamstown as part of the “township” in the context of character preservation legislation does not prevent a future review of zoning or land
division policies to enable residential or higher density rural living development, either through rezoning or variation to minimum lot sizes,
subject to residential land supply and demand at the time. That discussion concluded that high level structure/spatial planning should be
undertaken to determine constraints and opportunities within those vacant or underdeveloped rural living areas which would identify any
portions that may be suitable for more intensive residential development in the future.
In addition to the spatial/concept planning for Angaston, Eden Valley, Lyndoch and Williamstown, it is also recommended that concept
planning be undertaken for the following areas which are either vacant or underdeveloped:
11 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers






Residential zoned land within Precinct 8 Kalimna Road at Nuriootpa.
Residential zoned land off North Street, Valley Road and Radford Road, Angaston.
Township and Deferred Urban zoned areas at Mount Pleasant
Township zoned land on Stockwell Road, Stockwell
Township zoned land off George Street, Williamstown
Township zoned land at Moculta
In respect to Mount Pleasant, although the Development Plan contains a concept plan for newly rezoned land it is considered, more detailed
concept planning is required including infrastructure planning. Early planning for the Deferred Urban areas would also be appropriate to
identify areas that should be protected or excluded from development – eg watercourses, rocky outcrops, native veg areas etc. This may also
review centre, commercial and industrial development opportunities.
In respect to Angaston various anomalies and unusual zoning arrangements have been identified including zone boundaries dissecting an
existing dwelling and shedding off North Street and split zoning of various properties off North Street and Moculta Road. The spatial and
concept planning process should review if adjustments should be made in these situations.
Where no high level higher level structure/spatial planning is required the process would require preparation of concept plans to guide
development and to incorporate the plans into the Development Plan with accompanying policies.
Designation of areas for higher density residential development
The Panel in its 2008 annual report requested that Council consider the following matter: The Development Plan provides opportunity for
higher density residential development in some township areas but the location of those areas within a particular zone is not always welldefined. Consideration could be given to better defining those areas within the relevant residential zones. Also more detail of the form that
this higher density residential development should take having regard to the existing township character.
It is understood that within the council's recent Better Development Plan and General DPA process this matter was addressed through
provisions requiring such development to be close to the actual town centre. In addition, existing areas within Nuriootpa were particularly
identified as being the preferred location for such development.
12 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
However it is appropriate to review if policies introduced by the BDP and General GPA are sufficiently clear - eg Objective 2 of the Residential
Zone says "increased dwelling densities in close proximity to the District Town Centre Zone ... where the established character of the area is
not likely to be adversely affected." Arguably, with established character being single-storey on large lots, any two storey dwelling and the
like will affect the character. The desired character statement for the Residential Zone also discourages two-storey dwellings except on large
lots.
Development on hammerhead allotments
A number of issues have arisen when the Development Assessment Panel has been considering proposed residential development on
hammerhead allotments, including building heights. The current Development Plan policies do not appear to take into account such matters as
allotment sizes, location or the existence of two storey dwelling in the locality.
Current residential land supply and demand
An initial assessment of land supply and demand has been undertaken. The analysis shows that based on dwelling approval rates between 20032012, the median level of existing or proposed residential lots across all Council townships and settlements is 14.2 years, ranging from 1.4
years at Stockwell to 33.4 years at Mount Pleasant, although it is acknowledged that the average of three new dwellings over the past decade
is distorted by the extensive areas of the township rezoned in 2010.
If existing Residential or Township zoned in Stockwell, Angaston and other towns is developed the median supply increases to 26.8 years zoned
supply.
Other aspects for review


Industrial area of Valley Road, Angaston: current light industrial zoned area comprises vineyards, restaurant, warehouses and storage
facilities. Query suitability of zoning.
Mount Pleasant Natural Resource Management Centre, Library and associated facilities: Portion of property is in Residential Policy Area.
Review if all the land should be in the Town Centre Policy Area.
13 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers








Industrial area on Torren Valley Road/Williamstown Road, Mount Pleasant: Review if existing industrial business should be in Township
Zone/Light Industry Policy Area in lieu of Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone. Considerations: would this be an appropriate
location for new employment activities; do watershed values suggest it should not be further developed; does current zoning restrict
current operations and would it unnecessarily restrict reasonable expansion?
Query need for and/or policies associated with Nuriootpa Low Density Policy Area/precinct: It is understood the intent of this policy area
was to restrict infill development due to concerns about the narrow streets in the area and their capacity to accommodate additional
traffic. The policy area may conflict with the planning strategy to facilitate infill development, in particular adjacent to activity centres.
In this context the planning strategy designates Nuriootpa as a District Centre.
Residential and Township Zones: need to specify minimum frontage for community lots
Minimum frontage policies: The minimum frontage requirement for a detached dwelling in the Residential Zone (15 m) is stricter than in
the Township Zone (12 m). What is the rationale for this? Would wider lots be expected in the smaller lower density towns than in the
major towns?
Residential Zone - Precincts 8 and 9 - residential densities: Residential Zone PDC 9 lists minimum site areas for areas other than Precincts
8, 9 and 10. PDC 21 then lists minimum areas for Precinct 10. Although minimum lot sizes are listed in PDC 18 and 20 for Precincts 8 and 9
respectively, there are no minimum site areas for the actual dwellings. Does this mean there is no maximum number of dwellings allowable
on lots in these two precincts?
Springton minimum lot size: Potential reduction in lot size when CWMS implemented in Springton. Request came from previous owner of 12
Williamstown Road but the issue is still relevant - when CWMS is implemented is it timely to allow increased density?
Township Zone - Williamstown Desired Character Statement: The Township Zone contains no desired character statement for Williamstown
Request to rezone Illaparra Winery Murray Street land from Light Industry to Residential. Requires initial industrial land assessment to
determine priority for retention.
Possible amendments or action
 Concept planning be undertaken for the
following areas which are either vacant
or underdeveloped:
o Residential zoned land within
Precinct 8 Kalimna Road at
Nuriootpa.
o Residential zoned land off North
Possible DPA or project
Spatial/concept planning
project
Priority
2013/14
14 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
Street, Valley Road and Radford
Road, Angaston.
o Township and Deferred Urban
zoned areas at Mount Pleasant
o Township zoned land on
Stockwell Road, Stockwell
o Township zoned land off George
Street, Williamstown
o Township zoned land at Moculta
 Review apparent anomaly between
Heritage and Character Preservation
District overlay maps and character
preservation legislation regarding
designation of townships
 Review policies regarding higher density
residential development in major
townships including potential to better
define areas where two storey dwellings
are appropriate
 Review policies for residential
development on hammerhead
allotments, including desired building
heights
 Assess request to rezone Illaparra
Winery land on Murray Street, Tanunda
from Light Industry to Residential,
including initial industrial land
assessment to determine priority for
retention
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Character DPA
2013/14
Townships DPA
2014/15
Townships DPA
2014/15
Internal review
2013/14
15 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
1.3 Rural living opportunities
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
New transit corridors, growth areas, transit-oriented developments and activity centres: New
metropolitan and township growth areas
Policy 42 Restrict ad hoc construction of rural dwellings and subdivision of rural lands through the
planned expansion of townships, density increases within township boundaries, and appropriate
intensification of existing Rural Living zones, and strategic designation of new Rural Living zones,
outside areas of primary production significance.
Policy 43 Prevent the expansion and/or inappropriate intensification of existing, or the creation of
new, Rural Living Zones in areas of primary production significance.
Existing Development Plan policies
The Barossa Council offers various opportunities for rural living within the Cockatoo Valley-Williamstown ‘corridor’; within standalone ‘pockets’
at Altona, Kalbeeba, Mount McKenzie, Cromer and Mount Crawford; and within ‘fringe’ rural living areas adjacent to Angaston, Eden Valley,
Lyndoch, Tanunda and Williamstown.
16 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The Development Plan contains the following approach for these rural living areas:




The Rural Living Zone contains 22 precincts where land division is envisaged and where a range of minimum allotment sizes apply (from 0.5
ha – 20 ha), and a special policy area for the Cromer and Mount Crawford areas located within the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed where no
additional lots are envisaged.
Concept Plan Map Baro/8 applies to an undeveloped portion of Precinct 21 Cockatoo Valley off Cockatoo Lane.
The following areas are shown as a “Designated Area” on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps:
o Precinct 16 Altona
o Precinct 21 Cockatoo Valley
o Precinct 22 Cockatoo Valley South
o Precinct 24 Goldfields
o Precinct 25 Kalbeeba East
o Precinct 27 Lorke Road
o Precinct 29 Mt McKenzie
o Precinct 30 Needles Road
o Precinct 31 Speck Road
o Precinct 34 Williamstown North
o Precinct 36 Williamstown West
o Precinct 37 Yettie Road
The following areas are shown as an “Area Excluded from District” on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps:
o Precinct 17 Angaston East
o Precinct 18 Angaston North
o Precinct 19 Angaston South
o Precinct 20 Angaston West
o Precinct 23 Eden Valley
o Precinct 28 Lyndoch
o Precinct 32 Tanunda
o Precinct 33 Williamstown East
o Precinct 35 Williamstown South
17 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers

Precinct 26 Kalbeeba West is not given any status on the Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps (Note: the planning
strategy shows this precinct as being within the planned urban lands to 2038 boundary after being designated for future urban development
in 2007 when the urban boundary was extended).
New rural living opportunities
While the planning strategy envisages intensification of existing rural living areas and designation of new rural living areas, the Character
Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 effectively overrides that vision in that it restricts the potential to create new rural living areas within
the new Barossa Valley District and intensification of the rural living zoned areas shown as a “Designated Area” at Kalbeeba, Altona, Cockatoo
Valley, Barossa, Goldfields, Williamstown, Mount McKenzie, Cromer and Mount Crawford.
Over the past years Council has received numerous requests from owners of land within or near the above areas to rezone their land from
primary production to rural living or to relax existing rural living policies to facilitate smaller lots; however due to the new legislative
restrictions, these requests cannot be progressed any further.
Designation of existing rural living zoned areas adjacent to Angaston, Tanunda, Lyndoch, Eden Valley and Williamstown shown as an “Area
Excluded from District” and as part of a “township” in the context of the character preservation legislation does not prevent a future review of
zoning or land division policies to enable residential or higher density rural living development, either through rezoning or variation to
minimum lot sizes; however any such review would be dependent on residential land supply and demand at the time.
In the meantime concept plans are needed to guide future development of vacant or underdeveloped rural living areas at Angaston, Eden
Valley, Lyndoch and Williamstown. However as these areas are included within the 'township' in the context of the character preservation
legislation they may also be designated for more intensive residential development in the future and inappropriate rural living development
may prejudice orderly long term development.
A three stage approach is proposed:
1. Undertake higher level structure/spatial planning to determine constraints and opportunities within these areas. This analysis may
indicate that the existing nominated densities are appropriate, for example due to visibility or servicing constraints; however it may
identify portions of an existing precinct could be more intensively developed when demand exists.
18 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
2. Prepare concept plans for those precincts to guide development of those areas where the existing nominated density would be
retained, and to 'protect' any areas suitable for longer term higher density development.
3. Incorporate these concept plans into the Development Plan with accompanying policies.
Other discussion
Potential exists to review the number of precincts in that in a general sense the only differences between the various rural living precincts are
the minimum lot size. An alternative could be to combine the precincts based on lot size – eg “Precinct x 1 ha” – or alternatively insert the
minimum lot size in the name – eg “Precinct 25 Kalbeeba East – 0.5 ha”.
Possible amendments or action
 Undertake structure/spatial planning to
identify long term development
constraints and opportunities; prepare
subsequent concept plans for relevant
areas; and introduce concept plans for
selected residential and rural living
precincts at Angaston, Eden Valley,
Lyndoch and Williamstown.
 Review number and intent of existing
rural living precincts having regard to
existing development and similarities
between precincts
Possible DPA or project
Spatial/concept planning
project
Priority
2013/14
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
19 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
1.4 Affordable housing
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Affordable housing
Policy 1 Reinforce the state government policy that at least 15 per cent of new dwellings should meet
the criteria for affordable housing (of which five per cent is specifically for high needs housing) in
significant new developments and growth areas, including:
- State Significant Areas
- areas subject to Structure Plans and precinct planning, in particular new ... transit corridors
- rezoning that substantially increases dwelling potential (including new greenfield growth areas ...
Policy 4 Provide for the integration of new affordable housing with other new dwellings in
developments to avoid inappropriate concentrations of social housing.
Policy 5 Ensure that the standard of affordable housing is at least consistent with other dwellings in a
development, for example, in appearance, construction, materials, energy efficiency and water
conservation measures.
Target A Provide for at least 15 per cent of housing in all new significant developments to be
affordable housing, including five per cent for high-needs people.
Target B At least 38,700 new dwellings (15 per cent of all dwelling growth) should be affordable
housing (see Table D1).
20 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Target of 6950 dwellings set for Barossa region.
Current affordable housing policies in the Development Plan are based on the South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 4.1 and while
not inconsistent the current version 6 policies, the policies should be upgraded to the current version. Affordable housing policies have also
been introduced into various zones in an ad-hoc manner via separate DPAs and it is recommended those policies be reviewed to ensure a
consistent approach across the council area and consistency with the South Australian Planning Policy Library.
Possible amendments or action
 Update affordable housing policies in
accordance with the South Australian
Planning Policy Library Version 6
 Review suitability of existing affordable
housing policies in individual zones to
ensure a consistent approach across the
council area and consistency with the
South Australian Planning Policy Library
Possible DPA or project
Townships DPA
Priority
2014/15
Townships DPA
2014/15
21 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
2. Economy and Jobs
2.1 Activity centres, commercial and mixed-use development
30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
New transit corridors, growth areas, transit-oriented developments and activity centres: Mixeduse activity centres
Policy 25 Adopt a typology of activity centres, as set out in the Activity centre typology table in
Appendix 3 and represented in Map D6.
(Appendix 3 provides for the following activity centre typology:
 Adelaide City Centre
 Regional centres
 Major district centres
 District centres
 Bulky goods centres
 Specialist centres
 Neighbourhood centres
 Local centres)
Policy 28 Provide retail and other services outside designated activity centres where development will
contribute to the principles of accessibility; a transit-focussed and connected city; world-class design
and vibrancy; and economic growth and competitiveness.
22 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Policy 29 Ensure activity centres promote mixed-use development rather than separate residential,
commercial and retail developments.
The economy and jobs: Employment distribution
Policy 4 Promote mixed-use development in the transit corridors, activity centres and transit-oriented
developments to ensure jobs are situated close to where people live. ...
The planning strategy shows a "District" activity centre at Nuriootpa7 and a future "District" activity centre at Concordia8. No "higher-order"
activity centres are shown in the council area, with the highest order centre being the Gawler “Major district centre”.
Existing Development Plan policies
The Development Plan contains the following approach for activity centres and retailing:






7
8
Nuriootpa (Map Baro/6) - District Town Centre Zone with a supporting concept plan (Concept Plan Map Baro/1).
Angaston (Maps Baro/12 and 13) - District Town Centre Zone and Angaston Centre Historic Conservation Area. Concept Plan Map Baro/3
applies to a portion of the zone (a portion north of Murray Street).
Tanunda (Maps Baro/16 and 18) - District Town Centre Zone and Murray Street Tanunda Historic Conservation Area. No concept plan exists
for the town centre.
Lyndoch (Map Baro/35) - Township Zone with Town Centre Policy Area. Concept Plan Map Baro/4) applies to portion of the Town Centre
Policy Area (a portion west of Barossa Valley Way and Lyndoch Valley Way) and a portion of the Residential Policy Area.
Mount Pleasant (Map Baro/40) - Township Zone with Town Centre Policy Area. The majority of the policy area is also within the Historic
Conservation Area 7 Mount Pleasant. Concept Plan Map Baro/14) prepared in 2010 applies to the entire township, designating the Town
Centre Policy Area as “Commercial” with no specific strategic or design guidance.
Williamstown (Map Baro/37) - Township Zone with Town Centre Policy Area. The policy area is also within the Historic Conservation Area
10 Williamstown. No concept plan exists for the town centre.
Map E6
Maps E6 and E6A
23 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers






Eden Valley, Springton, Stockwell and Sandy Creek are included in the Township Zone with no distinct activity centres or policy areas.
Bethany, Krondorf, Light Pass and Rosedale are included in the Settlement Zone with no distinct activity centres or policy areas.
The Commercial Zone applies to two areas in Nuriootpa, at the northern end in the vicinity of Murray Street, Kalimna Road and Old Sturt
Highway, and towards the southern end along Tanunda Road and Railway Terrace. The zone caters for bulky goods/retail showrooms and
small shops that are ancillary to certain defined land uses. The desired character statement also includes specific policies to limit
additional fast food outlets.
Beckwith Park Precinct 3 within the Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone caters for bulky goods.
The Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone provides for limited retailing in the form of shops up to 250 m2 ancillary to industrial
development.
The District Town Centre Zone currently envisages a broad range of commercial and retail uses, including residential uses in conjunction
with non-residential development; however guidelines regarding privacy, amenity and parking for ‘shop top’ housing would assist at design
and assessment stages.
Centre policies review
Council commissioned a review of centre policies9 to inform the Strategic Directions Report process. The following discussion includes a
summary of the key findings of the centre policy review together with other aspects:
Centre policies review: Alignment between planning strategy and Development Plan


9
Applying the activity centre typology within the planning strategy, activity centres in townships other than Nuriootpa would be
designated as either "neighbourhood" or "local" centres; however the Development Plan does not contain any Neighbourhood Centre or
Local Centre zones.
Although inclusion of Angaston and Tanunda within the District Town Centre Zone is ‘out of step’ with the planning strategy, an analysis
of alternative zones within the South Australian Planning Policy Library suggests the Town Centre Zone would be more appropriate for
these towns than the Neighbourhood Centre Zone or Local Centre Zone.
Barossa Council Centre Policy Review March 2012 undertaken by URPS
24 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers

The District Town Centre is not a standard planning policy library module, with the library containing a “District Centre Zone” and
“Town Centre Zone”. Despite this, the zone envisages a range of uses consistent with the Planning Strategy and the policies are
virtually identical to the library module.
Centre Policy Review: Concept plans for town centres




The inconsistent approach to concept plans reflects the historic policy differences between the previous four Development Plans that
were consolidated in 2002, but is not necessarily a situation that requires correction.
The Nuriootpa town centre concept plan should only be altered once Council’s overall vision is finalised. Note: subsequent to the review
report, Council has commenced a place management project for the Nuriootpa town centre which is likely to drive the need to review
and amend the existing concept plan.
Rather than preparing concept plans for all townships and/or activity centres the focus should be on refining associated Desired
Character statements to provide specific policy direction for individual townships. A Tanunda Urban Design Framework and Master Plan
is currently being prepared which may provide recommendations relating to development policies which require further review and
implementation
The Angaston Urban Design Framework undertaken in August 2008 contains various zoning recommendations which are yet to be
implemented. A review of that report and the concept plan for the Angaston town centre shows various inconsistencies which need to
be addressed.
Mount Pleasant town centre


The Town Centre Policy Area (applying to Lyndoch, Mount Pleasant and Williamstown) contains a narrower range of envisaged uses than
the District Town Centre Zone including a restriction on the size of shops (250 m2).
Given the anticipated future growth of Mount Pleasant, there is a need to ‘loosen’ existing restrictions on retail floor area within the
Town Centre Policy Area as it applies to Mount Pleasant to allow for development of larger shops (such as a small supermarket), subject
to an upper limit on floor area being retained to protect the town’s historic streetscape character, together with additional policies in
relation to building design, parking and vehicular access.
25 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Shops in the Commercial Zone



During the BDP and General DPA process a submission suggested that the range of allowable land uses in the Commercial Zone was too
restrictive, and that the zone should explicitly allow for bulky goods not suited to town centre and shops up to 250 m2. No evidence
was presented at the time to indicate that the current or proposed policies would be ineffective or will lead to inappropriate
development.
The Commercial Zone and, in particular the Desired Character statement, strongly discourages the development of shops “...as they
may hinder the development or function of established centre”, noting that such a policy approach is consistent with the South
Australian Planning Policy Library which also discourages shops in the Commercial Zone. With this in mind, it is not considered
appropriate to alter the policies within the Commercial Zone to allow shops with a larger floor area. Shops with a larger floor area are
more appropriately located in the Town Centre Zone.
Despite this, the designation of Nuriootpa as a district centre suggests that a retail analysis is necessary to review if the existing mix of
town centre and commercial zoning and allowance for retailing in the Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone is appropriate.
Car parking provisions in activity centres


Council’s Development Assessment Panel in its 2008 Report indicated that development in township areas zoned commercial is often
restricted by the lack of on- and off-site car parking and that this may limit forms of development which would otherwise be supported
by the policies contained in the Development Plan. It suggested that council may wish to review existing Development Plan
requirements for the number of car parking spaces for particular types of development.
The Centre Policy Review paper examined existing car parking requirements, concluding that current policies are sufficiently flexible to
allow for a range of options to provide car parking.
Car parking fund


In its 2008 report the Panel also recommended that consideration be given to the setting up of a car parking fund to provide off site car
parking.
Currently where special car parking arrangements are required, individual agreements are generally negotiated with proponents such as
provision of car parking on another site. The option of a car parking fund has previously been investigated but was found to have
limited applicability due to low development need and demand. Despite this, the Centre Policy Review paper has recommended that
26 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Council give further consideration to the costs and benefits associated with establishing a car-park fund for major townships, including
a review of the supply and demand of car-parking within the townships to determine whether or not a car-park fund may be justified.
Strategic directions




Alter designation of Tanunda and Angaston town centres to “Town Centre”
Review Nuriootpa district town centre policies to ensure district scale developments are located within Nuriootpa.
Undertake a retail analysis to review if existing mix of town centre and commercial zoning and allowance for retailing in the
Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone at Nuriootpa is appropriate given the designation of the town as a district centre.
Potential for a car parking fund
Possible amendments or action
 Change zoning/designation of Angaston
and Tanunda from "District Town Centre
Zone” to "Town Centre Zone"
 Review the "three-layer approach" (zone
and two policy areas) at Mount Pleasant
and Williamstown
 Review Desired Character statements for
each township and activity centre
 On completion of the place management
project for Nuriootpa, review Concept
Plan Map Baro/1 to incorporate existing
and desired strategic directions
 On completion of Tanunda Urban Design
Framework and Master Plan prepare
concept plan for Tanunda and
incorporate into Development Plan as
required
 Review concept plan and zonings for the
Possible DPA or project
 Townships DPA
Priority
2014/15

Townships DPA
2014/15

Townships DPA
2014/15

Townships DPA
2014/15

Townships DPA
2014/15

Townships DPA
2014/15
27 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers




Angaston town centre to ensure
alignment between existing
development and recommendations
within the Angaston Urban Design
Framework, which are yet to be
implemented.
Review cap on retail floor space for
Mount Pleasant town centre
Incorporate additional policies in
relation to building design, parking and
vehicular access
Consider costs and benefits associated
with establishing a car-park fund,
including a review of the supply and
demand of car-parking within the
townships to determine whether or not a
car-park fund may be justified
Prepare guidelines regarding privacy,
amenity and parking for ‘shop top’
housing

Townships DPA
2014/15

Internal review
2014/15

Internal review
2013/14
28 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
2.2 Industry
Planning Strategy policy/target
The economy and jobs: Employment distribution
Policy 2 Set specific jobs targets at a regional level, which will:
· reflect where people are going to live to minimise journey-to-work times
· take advantage of existing infrastructure, such as transport
· take account of the likely regional growth of key sectors
· plan for employment activities near major educational institutions
· ensure sufficient land is available for commercial, industrial, retail, primary production, mining and
other activities.
Target A Provide for 282,000 additional jobs during the next 30 years. The regional distribution of
additional jobs is:
...
- 38,500 in the Barossa ...
The economy and jobs: Primary production
Target F Plan for an additional 2000 primary production jobs in Greater Adelaide.
The economy and jobs: Mining and resources
Policy 18 Maintain adequate access to known mineral deposits and minimise potential land-use conflicts
between incompatible uses, particularly residential. Preserve appropriate separation distances between
mining activities and residential areas and other incompatible developments.
29 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Target G Protect 23,300 hectares of land for extraction.
The economy and jobs: Manufacturing
Policy 22 Designate specific employment lands for manufacturing purposes and protect their long-term
use.
Policy 23 Ensure planning controls are flexible enough to adapt to new industry structures.
Policy 25 Create sufficient buffer activities and design guidelines to prevent manufacturing lands being
lost to encroachment by residential activities and to prevent land-use conflicts between residential and
manufacturing activities.
Target J Protect 2580 hectares of employment land for manufacturing purposes.
The economy and jobs: Green industries
Policy 35 Ensure planning controls for employment lands are flexible enough to allow new green
technologies and industries to emerge.
2000 additional jobs in the Primary production sector for the Greater Adelaide region (presumably with an expectation that the Barossa region
will accommodate a proportion of these additional jobs)
Existing Development Plan policies
A concept plan is needed for vacant or underdeveloped general and light industrial land on Samuel, Tolley and Old Mill Roads to guide future
development. There may also be potential benefits if industrial land in Light Regional Council also included. This process may also address
existing development policies regarding protecting the potential for a future bypass along Tolley and Old Mill Roads which is discussed
elsewhere.
30 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
A concept plan is also needed to guide future development of general industry land on Angaston, Stockwell and Crennis Mines Roads, including
adjacent extractive industry land.
Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone - exemption for shops
The wording of first exception for shops does not appear to achieve the desired outcome – ie the intent was for a shop or group of shops which
is ancillary to and in association with industrial development, located on the same allotment, and where the total gross leasable area is 250
square metres or less to be on-merit; however the use of the word “except” creates a double-negative which has the effect of making any shop
or group of shops on-merit, unless it meets all three of the criteria, whereas it then reverts to non-complying. Despite this the second
exception clearly intends to restrict the nature of retailing in Precinct 3 Beckwith Park Mixed Use/Industry. We simply need to delete "except"
Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone non-complying development approach
Review appropriateness of the "all forms of development are non-complying" approach.
Possible amendments or action
 Prepare concept plans for vacant or
underdeveloped general, light and
extractive industrial land at Nuriootpa
and Angaston.
 Reformat Industry (Barossa Valley
Region) Zone structure
 Change to policies for retailing in the
Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone
Possible DPA or project
Spatial/concept planning
project
Priority
2013/14
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
31 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
2.3 Tourism
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
The economy and jobs
Policy 35 Provide for sustainable tourism developments across Greater Adelaide, in line with the South
Australian Tourism Plan 2009, including:
- protecting, enhancing and promoting the qualities that attract tourism and are of value to the whole
community
- providing appropriate support infrastructure for tourism
- facilitating sustainably designed tourism accommodation in suitable locations
- facilitating tourism-related developments, such as restaurants, specialty retail and accommodation,
that add value to existing enterprises.
Existing Development Plan policies
The Development Plan contains a variety of policies relating to tourism development, summarised as follows:



“Tourism Development” module within General Section. This is based on South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 4.1 but is
consistent with the current Version 6.
A Caravan and Tourist Park Zone which applies to caravan parks at Nuriootpa, Tanunda, Lyndoch (Note: The caravan park at Williamstown
is located within the Township Zone and Recreation Policy Area 7
A Tourist Accommodation Zone which generally applies to the Chateau Tanunda complex
32 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers

The remaining zones establish a policy framework for tourism development which, in general terms, anticipates small scale tourist
accommodation related to farming activities as well as cellar doors and restaurants related to wineries.
It is noted that policies for new Bed and Breakfast Accommodation facilities are more restrictive in the Primary Production (Barossa Valley
Region) Zone and Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone than in the Primary Production Zone and Rural Landscape Protection Zones –
for example, in the first two zones a facility within a new building is non-complying, whereas a new standalone building is a consent
development in the two other zones.
Tourism Policy Review
Council commissioned a Tourism Policy Review in 2012. The report highlighted that overall the Development Plan restricts the scale of tourism
development in the rural areas and generally contains a ‘mixed bag’ of policies in relation to tourism development. Specifically, the report
makes the following observations:





No indication of what a “major tourism development” comprises.
The “designated areas” referred to in General Section PDC 6 are not explicitly identified, but likely comprise the Caravan and Tourist Park
Zone and Tourist Accommodation Zone.
The Development Plan uses a variety of descriptions for tourist accommodation (such as farm stay, guesthouse, rural or nature retreat, bed
and breakfast accommodation), but does not clearly articulate the differences between them.
The General Section indicates that small to medium scale tourism development is appropriate outside of townships and settlements;
however, the rural zones clearly indicate that tourist accommodation should be of a small scale and closely linked to an existing farm
complex.
In terms of public notification, tourist accommodation within the rural zones of the Barossa Council Development Plan should be either
Category 1 or Category 2 depending on the scale of the facility. For example, tourist accommodation that is of a similar scale and has
similar characteristics to a dwelling (e.g. farm-stay or bed and breakfast for less than 5 guests) should be a Category 1 development. Larger
forms of tourist accommodation should be Category 2 development to reflect the potential impacts that it may have on surrounding land
uses.
33 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Barossa Council Regional Tourism Plan Amendment Report
In August 2006, the Barossa Council endorsed a Statement of Intent to prepare a Regional Tourism Plan Amendment Report (PAR). This
Statement of Intent flagged Council’s intention to amend tourism policies within the Development Plan, in particular to reflect the
recommendations of the Clare Valley and Barossa Tourism Regions Integrated Strategic Tourism Plan. These are detailed in the Tourism Policy
Review (pp. 9-10).
Council did not proceed with the Regional Tourism PAR as it was anticipated that the imminent conversion of the Development Plan to the
Better Development Plan (BDP) format would address many of the recommendations of the Tourism Plan. The SOI subsequently lapsed in
December 2011 and the various Councils have all agreed to address their respective issues through separate Development Plan Amendments.
The Tourism Policy Review observes that while the new format Development Plan introduced a number of policies specifically related to
tourism development, several issues are yet to be investigated including:






Development Plan does not provide a detailed description or definition of the various types of tourist accommodation (such as bed and
breakfast accommodation), the exceptions being within the Caravan and Tourist Park Zone and Tourist Accommodation Zone where various
types of tourist accommodation are identified.
No clear and consistent direction in terms of the desired scale of tourist accommodation
Development Plan does not clearly promote the reuse of heritage places for tourism ventures
Medium scale tourist accommodation is still non-complying in a number of zones
Desired Character statements across the zones do not paint a consistent picture in terms of the “...desirability of well-designed and
sustainable tourism development in appropriate locations”, especially in the rural zones where limited direction is provided in terms of the
type and scale of tourism development.
Non-complying lists have not been ‘fine-tuned’ “...to ensure that ancillary uses, such as shops, small restaurants and other associated
ancillary land uses of a certain size and location and which demonstrate a clear link with the primary land use “(e.g. accommodation,
cellar door etc), are on merit/consent developments.
34 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
National Tourism Planning Guide: A Best Practice Approach
Prepared by the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism in 2011, the National Tourism Planning Guide is intended to provide a
“...good practice approach to delivering the strategic alignment of plan-making, planning policy development and the approval process...”.
Advocating a hierarchy of responses to achieve “...appropriate forward planning strategies, goals and objectives that are able to be supported
by well-conceived and logical regulative actions and controls”, the document recommends establishment of a clear and logical framework from
the planning strategy level down to local Development Plans.
The document also proposes that tourism facilities be grouped into three distinct categories (Short-term Accommodation, Tourist Facilities,
Other Ancillary Services). It also advocates a degree of flexibility within planning policies to ensure that innovative tourism products are not
constrained, listing a range of matters that should be considered when assessing the appropriateness of tourism development proposals.
The document goes on to recommend a number of specific planning provisions for tourism development. These include:
 The ability to locate tourism uses outside urban areas should be assessed having regard to the compatibility of the tourist use to the
surrounding area. The use of arbitrary controls such as room numbers, dwelling numbers and tourist numbers is not regarded as best
practice and will hinder tourism development innovation and growth of non-urban tourist economies;
 Short term tourist accommodation should be limited in terms of the length of stay to a period of 3 months; ·
 Permanent residential development should be limited in specific tourist zones where short term accommodation and other associated
tourist uses are intended and proposed;
 Tourism development should not be limited to a small number of zones but should be assessed in a performance manner based on its ability
to co-exist with and compatibility with existing uses. Tourism development should be a preferred use in the majority of zones within a
planning instrument.
 Non-tourist development should be restricted in tourist zones where that zone or precinct is specifically proposed for tourism uses.
The Tourism Policy Review recommended that Council approach the State Government to refine and adopt the land use definitions which
describe the three main elements of tourism development being accommodation, facilities and ancillary services and that these definitions are
inserted into the Development Regulations to guide tourism development across the State.
In addition, the Tourism Policy Review recommended that Council further considers the directions promoted in the National Tourism Planning
Guide for tourism development outside of townships; in particular that Council should consider the full range of potential tourism
developments (accommodation, facilities and ancillary services) and determine their compatibility with the surrounding area. Consideration
35 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
should also be given to the main objective of the zone (e.g. primary production, landscape protection or watershed protection) to determine
the scale/amount of tourism development that may be acceptable. Council should also consider the introduction of planning policies that
provide an alternative approach to the controls that are currently used in the Development Plan such as number of rooms and guests. The
overarching objective should be to foster innovation and the growth of non-urban tourist economies.
Scale of Tourist Accommodation
The South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) has previously indicated to Council that, based on the findings of a report prepared by Hudson
Howells, the Development Plan should be amended to allow medium-scale tourist accommodation of around 50 units in the rural zones, on the
basis that a tourism accommodation development of around 50 units represents the scale which is necessary to achieve a reasonable degree of
cost efficiency.
SATC’s position on this issue is consistent with the existing General Section policies which encourage small to medium scale tourist
accommodation outside of the townships and settlements. As previously noted the current rural zones which seek small-scale tourist
accommodation that is closely linked to primary production and wineries do not align with the General Section’s desire for medium-scale
tourist accommodation nor do they align with SATC’s desire to allow accommodation of around 50 units. Therefore, SATC’s recommendation
to allow medium-scale tourism accommodation would represent a significant change from the current policy framework.
With the above in mind, the Tourism Policy Review recommended that additional investigations and consultation are required to determine the
suitability of ‘opening up’ the rural zones to allow medium-scale tourist accommodation, taking into account other factors such as impact on
primary production, landscape and rural character.
Barossa Gap Audit
Commissioned by the Federal Government and released in late 2011, the Barossa Product Gap Audit (the “Audit”) “...investigated the tourism
products and infrastructure in the Barossa to determine what needs to be done to accommodate future growth.” The Audit notes that the
Barossa faces a complex task in terms of delivering an improved tourism product. Key to this will be the establishment of “...supportive
planning, zoning and approval practices to encourage investment”.
The Audit provides a series of potential forecasts for the tourism industry in the Barossa which may be achieved if the identified opportunities
are implemented. While the Audit notes that the Barossa has many strengths, weaknesses include accommodation capacity and diversity,
36 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
insufficient restaurants and lack of night time entertainment. In terms of its threats, the Audit lists damage to primary production assets, loss
of heritage, over-development, restrictive development application processes and a general loss of uniqueness.
In order to address the weaknesses and threats, the Audit advocates a combination of product and infrastructure opportunities which will assist
the Barossa to evolve as a “...culinary destination and thereby increase visitation, whist preserving its heritage and culture...” These
opportunities include additional:
 Tourist accommodation such as a 200 room 5 star resort and luxury lodges.
 Food, dining and function venues such as restaurants, extended cellar door tasting/restaurant hours, wine bars and cooking schools.
 Attractions such as an adventure playground, health and wellness spas, artisan and craft knowledge centre and wildlife park/native zoo.
The Audit reinforces the need to review the tourism policies within the Development Plan, including the rural zones which do not envisage
medium to large scale tourist accommodation as advocated by the Audit. In addition, it is unlikely that new luxury lodges (around 40 rooms) or
health and wellness spas could be developed under the current planning regime. The Audit indicates that there is a demand for these types of
facilities and that their development is necessary if the targets for the tourism industry set by the State Government are to be met.
The Audit also promotes opportunities for additional restaurants, wine bars and cooking schools as well as longer trading hours for these uses
and cellar door sales. While it is assumed that most of these land uses are likely to be developed within the townships, it will be important to
ensure that they are envisaged in the zoning framework and Desired Character statements. In addition, thought should be given to the
potential impacts associated with longer trading hours for food and wine premises. For example, this may be appropriate within the town
centres but could cause problems in other areas.
Destination Action Plan 2012-2014 – The Barossa
The South Australian Tourism Commission has developed Destination Action Plans (DAPs) to focus and prioritise projects to achieve goals set
out in state and regional strategies. The Destination Action Plan (the plan) is a simple, focused, consumer-led action plan, focused primarily on
projects that can be delivered in a three year period.
The plan prepared for the Barossa provided several insights relevant to development policy:
37 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers




Recent marketing campaigns have lifted short-term travel, but not consideration to travel in the long term, indicating an underlying
shortfall in the region’s tourism experience.
Winners in the Food & Wine category are offering more than just cellar door experiences
Primary targets are interstate and international high-yield visitors. These seek immersive experiences and high-quality accommodation.
The Barossa is best-positioned as a focus for the State’s drive to attract burgeoning Chinese markets.
The Barossa’s room mix and occupancy rates are similar to those of comparable near-metropolitan Australian tourism regions.
The plan notes the Barossa has the opportunity to be one of the best placed regions to attract out-of-state visitors, but to do so it must refresh
its tourism offering to increase competitive appeal to visit and enhance the ways visitors can experience the Barossa.
Specific actions recommended by the plan which have direct development policy or strategic direction implications are:
Actions
2
18
19
21
Medium term experience development
priorities include potential other
development opportunities in the
following themes: family friendly
experiences, and natural environment
experience (food, wine, culture, arts,
wildlife & wildlife exp)
Upgrade 30 rooms from 3 star to 4 star
200 new rooms by 2020 (4-5 star). May
be some projects of scale, with some
boutique and experiential
accommodation.
Signage & entry statements
DAP
Rank
1
Commencement
Medium
Responsible organisation & position
Barossa & Light Councils: Ensure there are no impediments to gaining
approval (positive policy environment).
Barossa & Light Councils: Develop Application & Licensing guide that
clarifies how developments negotiate through red tape (Gap Audit
recommendation)
Immediate
Barossa & Light Councils: work towards Development Plans to ensure
that there is clarity on where accommodation will be supported
(positive policy environment).
5
Long
Barossa & Light Councils: work towards Development Plans to ensure
that there is clarity on where accommodation will be supported
(positive policy environment);
6
Medium
Barossa and Light Councils, RDA, SATC and TB: work towards securing
5
38 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
22
Explore options for increased
Transport services
6
Medium
appropriate signage
Tourism Barossa, Barossa Council, and RDA to determine specific next
action
Source: Destination Action Plan 2012-2014 – The Barossa
The concept in Action 2 of ensuring “there are no impediments to gaining approval” is problematic as it implies tourism development should be
a complying form of development regardless of zone objectives and local amenity. Such an approach would require careful consideration, and
unless such development is located within a designated tourist-related zone, a more reasonable approach would be for any development to be
subject to consent as opposed to non-complying.
Bed and breakfast accommodation facilities in rural areas
Through the BDP and General DPA the Light Regional Council queried about restricting the size of bed and breakfast accommodation facilities
in rural areas - ie it noted that B&B accommodation for more than 6 guests is non-complying in Light Regional Council's Primary Industry Zone,
with an implied suggestion that a similar policy be included in the Barossa's development policies.
As noted above, policies for new Bed and Breakfast Accommodation facilities are more restrictive on the valley floor and watershed areas
where a facility within a new building is non-complying compared to the Primary Production Zone and Rural Landscape Protection Zones which
contain the Barossa Range for example, where a new standalone building is a consent development.
Tourist Accommodation Zone land uses
The BDP and General DPA increased the number of non-complying land uses in the Tourist Accommodation Zone, but did not justify or explain
the rationale for doing so.
Possible amendments or action
 Changes to policies to facilitate new Bed
and Breakfast Accommodation facilities
within Primary Production (Barossa
Valley Region) Zone and Watershed
Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone
Possible DPA or project
Tourism DPA
Priority
2014/15
39 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
 Changes to public notification for tourist
accommodation within rural zones
 Inclusion of detailed descriptions or
definitions for various types of tourist
accommodation including what
constitutes a “major tourism
development”
 Changes to non-complying lists relating
to ancillary uses, such as shops, small
restaurants and other associated
ancillary land uses of a certain size and
location and which demonstrate a clear
link with the primary land use
 Alternative policies regarding number of
rooms and guests and the like with
overarching objective to foster
innovation and the growth of non-urban
tourist economies
 New policies to facilitate a combination
of product and infrastructure
opportunities to assist the Barossa to
evolve as a “...culinary destination and
thereby increase visitation, whilst
preserving its heritage and culture
 Changes to non-complying land uses in
the Tourist Accommodation Zone
 Request State Government to refine and
adopt the land use definitions contained
in the National Tourism Planning Guide
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Project
2013/14
40 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
and that these definitions are inserted
into the Development Regulations to
guide tourism development across the
State
Possible DPA or project
Priority
41 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
3. Heritage and character
3.1 Character
Existing Development Plan policies
Development Plan:


Character Preservation District Overlay contained in Overlay Section
Various Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps showing:
o Designated Area
o Area Excluded from District
o Character Preservation District
All land outside the planned urban lands to 2038 boundary now lies within the Barossa Valley “Character Preservation District”, comprising the
“rural area” and “townships” with this land predominantly within the rural area where land divisions for residential development must be
refused and new rural living areas cannot be created or existing ones expanded. The new legislation also states that existing minimum lot sizes
in the Rural Living Zone will prevail, effectively preventing intensification of these areas without legislative change.
Anomalies:

Terminology used within Development Plan differs from Act – ie:
o “district” within Act comprises the entire area shown on GRO plan GP 4 of 2012 including areas marked “rural area”, “rural living
area” and “township”, whereas Character Preservation District overlay maps in Development Plan show each “township” as “Area
Excluded from District”
o “rural area” within Act is shown as “Character Preservation District” on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps
o “rural living area” within Act is shown as “Designated Area” on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps
42 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
o
“township” within Act is shown as “Area Excluded from District” on Heritage and Character Preservation District overlay maps – is
the exclusion only for the purpose of the “Character Preservation District Overly”?
Items for review of Act:


Community zoned land at Tanunda included within district
Industry (Barossa Valley Region) zoned land included within district
Implement Barossa and Light Region Landscape Assessment Study recommendations
Council commissioned a scoping study to provide guidance on the best way to implement the recommendations of the study having regard to
development policies introduced via the new format Development Plan in 2011, previous concerns raised by the Development Assessment
Panel, and the new character preservation legislation.
The review and analysis considered if and how the study recommendations could be readily translated or expressed through sound planning
policy.
The key findings are summarised below:
 Council's Development Plan provides a good basis for assessment of most forms of development
 Additional policy review and minor amendment is suggested to tighten existing policy
 Not all of the study recommendations can be addressed or implemented simply by way of planning policy
 The study should be used as a tool to assist planning assessment within areas of scenic quality particularly
 The planning process allows for incremental improvements to be made to sites that are degraded but other mechanisms will need to
employed to implement several recommendations
 Education programs, community and industry support is required
 Council can act as a ‘Champion’
 Investigate appointing a landscape architect and urban designer to provide expert assistance on development proposals and policy
formulation
 A simple 'road test' of existing policies relating to development on ridgelines, appearance of land and buildings and landscape value
concluded that they provide reasonable guidance, particularly within the General Section (eg Siting and Visibility and Sloping Land)
43 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Specific relevant recommendations within the scoping study were as follows:







Strengthen desired character statements to include qualitative statements and/or additional principles expressing suitable design siting and
planting measures
Insert new provisions into General Section that clearly orate what design responses are required to lessen visual impact of development
Review and where necessary amend zones that contain sensitive scenic quality, such that there is a consistent message regarding the
importance of protecting their character
Review policies to ensure sufficient emphasis is placed on 'greening the Barossa'
Where necessary, strengthen existing siting and design policies relating to development on ridgelines and exposed areas.
Seek collaborative approach with State government to discuss, draft and implement regional provisions that will further the protection,
management and enhancement of development generally within the Barossa council area and surrounds
Investigate feasibility of establishing a 'design hub' as a service to industry and ratepayers, including potential to lessen visual impact of
existing developments.
ResCode
The recent character values definition process again highlighted issues with the State Government’s Residential Development Code
(“ResCode”) applying to selected townships within the Council area and within the new character preservation district. The main concern is
that provisions for new dwellings and extensions to existing dwellings are arguably contrary to 30 Year Plan policies (eg New metropolitan and
township growth areas Policy 41 "Maintain the distinct scale, character and heritage of townships not identified for urban expansion by
encouraging development that recognises and complements their various roles and functions."), and to the objects of the new character
preservation legislation in that new complying development can impact on existing character within established residential areas. This is
particularly the case in respect to side setbacks in residential areas with ResCode enabling buildings on side boundaries whereas the
Development Plan seeks a 1.5 m setback. The potential for poor built outcomes exists through the construction of new dwellings in designated
“Full Code” areas and through qualifying extensions to existing dwellings throughout the Council area.
The State government’s aim for ResCode was “simpler, faster, cheaper” residential development. Potential exists to identify opportunities to
achieve these aims while still protecting the character of Barossa townships and restricting metropolitan style developments (eg walls on
boundaries) – in other words, develop a local version of ResCode as an alternative to the current Statewide regulated approach. In this regard
it will be necessary to research and document examples where Schedule 1A and Schedule 4 ResCode developments have resulted in poor
44 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
planning outcomes or have created problems which otherwise would have been avoided or addressed through a more rigorous planning
assessment and/or conditions.
Until a local “ResCode” or a refined list of complying policies is prepared, the State Government should be requested to remove those portions
of Barossa townships which have been designated as “Full Code” areas and to exclude The Barossa Council and the Barossa Valley character
preservation district from the ResCode provisions.
Zone boundaries of Rural Landscape Protection Zone
Submission made on BDP and General DPA process that the Rural Landscape Protection Zone should extend to Williamstown or at least to
Lyndoch. The submission did not indicate if this related to concerns about land use or built form outcomes, nor did it identify any specific
properties for inclusion.
The Rural Landscape Protection Zone covers the Barossa Range and foothills and the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone covers
the 'valley floor'. The forthcoming rural review and changes arising from the character preservation legislation and planning strategy alterations
may lead to changes relating to land use, siting and design in the two zones avoiding the need to change zone boundaries.
Visibility and skylining
The Development Assessment Panel has previous reported that when giving consideration to proposed residential development located on
ridgelines overlooking townships and the Barossa Valley Floor, the Panel was of the opinion that the Development Plan could offer more
assistance in addressing such proposed development. The issue of sky-lining and Visibility where height along with bulk, setback and screening
are other elements that when combined can be used to address the matter more successfully rather than having the one parameter such as
height alone, defining or dominating the assessment.
Development on sloping land
The Development Assessment Panel has previous reported that residential development on sloping land requires consideration to be given to
such matters as finished floor level, land cut and fill, depth of excavation and retaining walls and that the Development Plan could be
amended to better address these issues including the inclusion of design technique statements.
45 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Siting and design criteria for primary production buildings and other outbuildings
Siting and design criteria regarding wall height, earthworks and the like which apply to dwellings in the Primary Production Zone do not apply
to farm buildings or outbuildings. There are no suitable policies in the other three rural zones.
Siting and design criteria status
Siting and design criteria (eg wall height and number of storeys) are less strict in the Rural Landscape Protection Zone than in the Primary
Production Zone - ie a two storey dwelling with 2 m cut is consent in the RLPZ but non-complying in the PPZ. Similar provisions are also missing
from the Primary Production (Barossa Valley) Zone and Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone.
Design Code/Charter and design review process
The character values definition process in early 2013 identified the potential for a “Design Charter” or “Code” to be included within the
Planning Strategy, with this setting a context or framework for future development policy. A previous “2000 Barossa Winemakers Design
Charter” was cited as a possible basis to develop “fine grain” detailed design policies for inclusion in the Development Plan.
The fundamental aim of a Design Charter/Code is good design outcomes, particularly in sensitive and valued landscapes. The suggested
approach would also see establishment of a Design Advisory Group and/or a Design Advisor to have early input into development proposals,
therefore increasing the potential for good design outcomes.
The concept of a Design Charter/Code, Design Advisory Group, and a Design Advisor has merit and should be further explored; however
consideration needs to be given to matters such as whether any preliminary design advice/response service would be mandatory or voluntary,
whether it applied to specific proposals or all development ranging from winery development and primary production buildings to dwellings and
domestic structures in rural areas; and costs to establish and operate any service.
As recommended in the scoping study to implement relevant recommendations in the Barossa and Light Region Landscape Assessment Study, a
Design Code and associated advisory assistance may also seek to lessen the impact of existing inappropriate development.
46 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
 Strengthen desired character statements
to include qualitative statements and/or
additional principles expressing suitable
design siting and planting measures
 Insert new provisions into General
Section that clearly orate what design
responses are required to lessen visual
impact of development
 Review and where necessary amend
zones that contain sensitive scenic
quality, such that there is a consistent
message regarding the importance of
protecting their character
 Review policies to ensure sufficient
emphasis is placed on 'greening the
Barossa'
 Where necessary, strengthen existing
siting and design policies relating to
development on ridgelines and exposed
areas.
 Introduce into each rural zone more
detailed siting and design policies for
farm buildings and the like in relation to
height, wall length, floor area and
incidental earthworks, including
potential non-complying triggers similar
to policy approach for dwellings.
 Introduce siting and design policies in
relation to height, wall length, floor
Possible DPA or project
Character DPA
Priority
2013/14
Character DPA
2013/14
47 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
area and incidental earthworks for
dwellings, including potential noncomplying triggers, into Primary
Production (Barossa Valley) Zone, Rural
Landscape Protection Zone and
Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty
Ranges) Zone similar to those in the
Primary Production Zone.
 Seek collaborative approach with State
government to discuss, draft and
implement regional provisions that will
further the protection, management and
enhancement of development generally
within the Barossa council area and
surrounds
 Investigate feasibility of establishing a
'design hub' as a service to industry and
ratepayers, including potential to lessen
visual impact of existing developments.
 Investigate potential to establish a
Design Charter/Code, Design Advisory
Group and Design Advisor

Review existing residential development
policies with a view to increasing the list
of complying policies while still
protecting the character of Barossa
townships
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Internal review
2013/14
Internal review
2013/14
Character DPA - Design
Charter/Code concept
Internal review - Design
Advisory Group and Design
Advisor potential
Character DPA
2013/14
2013/14
48 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
 Request State Government to remove
The Barossa Council and the Barossa
Valley character preservation district
from the Residential Development Code
provisions contained within the
Development Regulations 2008.
Possible DPA or project
Internal review
Priority
2013/14
49 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
3.2 Heritage
30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Aboriginal heritage and culture
Policy 1 Identify and protect (consistent with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988) Aboriginal cultural
heritage sites and areas of significance, ... and incorporate these where appropriate into Development
Plan policies, Structure Plans and development processes.
Urban Design: Heritage
Policy 14 Ensure local heritage places and areas of heritage value are identified and incorporated into
planning policy.
Policy 15 Capitalise on the role heritage places and areas play in creating a sense of place through
techniques such as adaptive re-use and clearly described desired character statements in Structure
Plans.
Existing Development Plan policies



323 local heritage places
10 Historic Conservation Areas
205 contributory places
50 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers




2 historic policy areas (not conservation areas), one of which contains 5 individual precincts
Written policies in the General Section for Heritage Places and Historic Conservation Area based on the SA Planning Policy Library Version
4.1
Within the Primary Production Zone, Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone and the Rural Landscape Protection Zone possible to
create an additional allotment containing an existing State or local heritage place of no greater than 1 ha (creation of additional allotments
is normally non-complying). This exception does not apply to the Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone where no additional
allotments are envisaged
Demolition or part demolition of a State heritage place is non-complying (Note: the interim Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale Protection
Districts DPA provides that demolition or part demolition of a local heritage place is also non-complying)
The General Section policies were introduced via the Better Development Plan and General Development Plan Amendment (DPA) on 18 August
2011. The existing lists of local heritage places and contributory places, the historic conservation areas, the policy areas, and zone provisions
are derived from the Development Plans of the former Councils or from the Heritage Plan Amendment Report (PAR). That PAR followed a
detailed heritage survey in 2000, with interim effect given to the PAR on 27 March 2003. The PAR was approved on 24 March 2004. There has
been no subsequent review of places, areas, or policy intent.
Suitability of existing approach to heritage management
Apart from South Australian Planning Policy Library policies being inserted into the Development Plan in 2011 there has been no review of
places, areas, or policy intent since the original heritage survey and Heritage PAR. A review is proposed which will include the following
aspects:





ensure ‘accuracy’ of existing listed places (eg property address and description)
potential to designate additional places (either voluntary listing or as a result of a further heritage survey)
review of historic conservation area boundaries and contributory places taking into account development which has taken place since
introduction (eg review role of contributory places, review if subsequent alterations or development have modified original values or
significance of an area or a place)
potential to designate additional historic conservation areas
potential to incorporate incentives to protect and enhance heritage places (eg potential for heritage places to be used for activities that
are normally non-complying developments)
51 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Review of proposed heritage places removed from Heritage PAR
Following public consultation on the Heritage PAR in 2003 Council amended the PAR to remove 93 items from the list of local heritage places.
In conjunction with the final approval of the Heritage PAR in March 2004 Council agreed to undertake a subsequent Heritage Review PAR to
examine anomalies, reconsider the merits of the 93 ‘contested’ places and allow further consultation, including liaison with the Local Heritage
Advisory Committee (LHAC). Other aspects of the heritage policy in the Development Plan were also to be reviewed during the process. The
Council engaged a Heritage Adviser to assist with the review and this was undertaken in stages between 2004 and 2009 and is referred to as the
"2009 Heritage Survey".
The 2009 Heritage Survey indicated that approximately 50 of the 93 places should be identified as new local heritage places, but several of
these places need to be removed from the list as they have been demolished.
A Heritage Review PAR was commenced with a Statement of Intent endorsed and the 2009 Heritage Survey forming part of the associated
investigations; however the SOI subsequently lapsed. A new SOI was prepared but has not been submitted to Minister at this stage.
Designation of the additional places should be pursued through a Heritage Review DPA project including an opportunity for owners to comment
on the proposed listing.
Potential additional Historic Conservation Area
During the BDP and General DPA process a suggestion was made to consider introduction of a Historic Conservation Area for Light Pass to
recognise and protect various items that contribute to the historic character but which are not State or Local Heritage Places.
General housekeeping to address errors, anomalies and other matters
Various errors and anomalies have been identified which require addressing, including:




Dual State/local heritage place and contributory place listing
Errors in Contributory, local and State heritage places tables
Several properties listed as a contributory item in addition to being a State or local heritage place
Several places identified as a contributory item despite being located outside a Historic Conservation Area
52 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers


Several places have been demolished and need to be removed from respective tables
Errors with mapping of Historic Conservation Area 2 Angaston Residential
Possible amendments or action
 Review if additional places should be
listed
 Undertake a review of current heritage
management approach
 Designation of additional historic
conservation areas and places
 Designation of additional local heritage
places following 2009 Heritage Survey
 In Table Baro/4 remove items that are
also designated as a local heritage place
in Table Baro/5 or identified as a State
heritage place in Table Baro/6.
 Remove contributory items located
outside a historic conservation area from
Table Baro/4 and relevant heritage
overlay maps.
 In Tables Baro/4 and Baro/6 and
relevant heritage overlay maps address
identified street address and mapping
errors.
 In Table Baro/5 remove any property
which has been demolished.
Possible DPA or project
Heritage Review DPA
Priority
2014/15
Section 29 Amendment
2013/14
53 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
4. Rural Areas
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Health and wellbeing
Policy 3 Protect Greater Adelaide's high-quality food bowl areas (for example, Virginia) to ensure a
supply of affordable fresh food.
The economy and jobs: Primary production
Policy 11 Improve primary production's share of economic activity in Greater Adelaide through the
protection of strategic areas for horticulture, viticulture, dairying and grain production (see Map D11).
Policy 13 Designate areas of primary production significance (see Map D11) in Development Plans and
introduce a standard set of planning controls to protect the areas' use.
Policy 14 Use measures, including planning controls, to protect important primary production areas
such as the Barossa Valley, Willunga Basin and Northern Adelaide Plains.
Policy 15 Prevent the fragmentation of primary production land by restricting land subdivision to
maintain viable and productive land-use activity. These planning controls will differ across Greater
Adelaide, depending on the dominant activity of a particular area and the appropriate minimum lot size
of that type of agricultural activity.
Policy 16 Remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the adjustment of primary production activities.
Development Plans should be flexible enough to allow property holders to change agricultural practices
54 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
or commodity type, particularly where the change would enable increased productivity or better
environmental outcomes
Policy 17 Encourage the development of small-scale value-adding activity that complements local
primary production. Large-scale value adding activity should be located outside areas of primary
production significance.
Policy 18 Collocate intensive primary industries and compatible processing activities to reduce land-use
conflict and achieve efficiencies in production, processing, distribution, energy efficiency and waste
recycling, taking into account environmental, bio-security, infrastructure and rural amenity issues
Target E Protect up to 375,000 hectares of significant primary production areas.
Various maps show areas of potential primary production significance.
Existing Development Plan policies

4 rural zones:
o Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone (covers the “valley floor”)
o Primary Production Zone (with separate precincts for Moculta, Barossa Range and Concordia areas)
o Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone
o Rural Landscape Protection Zone (covers the “hills face” of the Barossa Range)
The existing rural policy framework was established via the Better Development Plan and General DPA in 2010 which among other changes,
introduced the Primary Production Zone replacing the previous Rural (Barossa Range) Zone, Rural B Zone (Concordia), Rural (Moculta) Zone,
Rural (Sandy Creek) Zone and Rural 1 (Outside Watershed) Zone; and the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone replacing the
previous Rural (Valley Floor) Zone, Rural (Gomersal) Zone and Rural (Nuriootpa Plains) Zone.
55 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Other significant changes introduced via that DPA included siting and design criteria for dwellings whereby a proposal which failed to satisfy
the criteria would be non-complying.
Despite the Development Plan being based on the “Better Development Plan” concept, the resulting policy framework is still somewhat
fragmented, disjointed and confusing. Administration of the new format Development Plan has highlighted various anomalies and issues which
need addressing. Various issues have also been raised by business and industry groups and primary producers. The following highlights the key
issues that require further investigation and addressing through a “Rural Areas Review” and subsequent DPA(s). In this regard it is noted that
the latest South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 6 does not contain a module dedicated to primary production.
Dwellings in rural areas
The intent of the consolidation process was to remove conflicts across the five previous rural zones and to establish a consistent policy
approach across the entire new Primary Production Zone. One aspect where policies varied considerably related to the construction of
dwellings, specifically the policies which required a minimum lot size to construct a dwelling in the former Rural (Barossa Range) Zone [100
ha], Rural (Moculta) Zone [60 ha] and Rural (Gomersal) Zone [60 ha] – policies that originated from earlier policy reforms in the early 1990’s.
The Better Development Plan and General DPA proposed to remove the minimum lot size requirement in order to bring the zone into line with
the former Rural 1 (Outside Watershed) Zone and Watershed Zone where no minimum lot size applied. Note: the DPA proposed to retain a
minimum 25 ha lot size for dwellings in the new Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone. The DPA investigations at the time explored
three alternatives to removing the minimum lot size requirement, namely:
1.
retain the status quo (requiring consequential policy areas to reflect the different approaches)
2.
introduce a 40 ha minimum
3.
introduce a 60 ha minimum
During the review of submissions and agency comments Council noted that other alternatives existed which were not investigated including:

Retention and expansion of Table Baro/10: Infill Dwelling Sites – eg to include sites that are unsuitable for traditional forms of primary
production, those that may benefit from reduced primary production, or should not be used for primary production due to adjacent
sensitive uses
56 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers




Introduction of precincts or policy areas comprising areas that are unsuitable for traditional forms of primary production and/or which
should not be used for alternative forms of primary production (eg intensive grazing) due to the presence of existing dwellings in close
proximity
Ability to undertake major boundary realignment to create smaller allotments for rural living (perhaps clustered) while retaining land for
primary production in one larger allotment.
Variation of the existing amalgamation option
A strategic restructure approach allowing major realignments where existing allotments may be relocated some distance away – eg on the
edge of an existing town where they can be connected to services.
Council acknowledged that such alternatives required further detailed investigation which was beyond the scope of DPA but if they were to be
undertaken, should be included in a broader review of all rural areas.
Following consideration of submissions on the Better Development Plan and General DPA Council concluded the following:




Data indicates that the proposal to remove the minimum lot size will result in fragmentation of primary production areas and construction
of additional dwellings leading to increased land values, increased interface issues and increased demand on infrastructure.
Although introduced without specific justification in the early 1990’s, policies for the Rural (Barossa Range) Zone, and Rural (Moculta) Zone
have sought to protect and facilitate ongoing primary production by restricting the potential to build a dwelling on vacant primary
production land. If the measures of success are the number of dwellings approved and the proportion of land transfers to primary
producers as opposed to hobby farmers, then those policies appear to have been successful. Put simply, those areas are recognised as
primary production areas, not as rural living areas, in contrast to the Rural B Zone (Concordia) and Rural 1 (Outside Watershed) zones
where a large number of dwellings have been approved on vacant primary production land.
Until the State Government completes its Designated Primary Production Areas (DPPA) project, it would be premature to change any rural
policies which relate to the value of primary production land, in particular increasing by nearly 100% the number of potential dwelling sites
Council abandon its plans to remove the existing minimum lot size required to construct a dwelling in the Rural (Barossa Range) and Rural
(Moculta) zones until and unless the changes are justified as part of a more comprehensive review of rural polices and until completion of
the State Government’s DPPA project (now known as the “Primary Production Priority Areas” project)
Council determined that until the broader review was complete, that it should maintain existing policies and incorporate them into the new
Development Plan via separate policy areas or specific policies as follows:
57 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
–
–
–
–
–
Concordia precinct (to retain land division option)
Moculta precinct (to retain 60 ha minimum lot size requirement and amalgamation option)
Barossa Range precinct (to retain 100 ha minimum lot size requirement and amalgamation option)
Retain the amalgamation option in the Hills Face Zone as an interim measure
Retain Table Baro/10: Infill Dwelling Sites
An “amalgamation of lots option” exists within the Primary Production Zone: Barossa Range and Moculta Precincts and the Rural Landscape
Protection Zone which provide for a dwelling to be on merit on an allotment created after 27 June 1996 by the amalgamation of 3 or more
contiguous vacant lots where the resultant lot is at least 50, 30 or 50 ha respectively. The intent of this option is to reduce the overall number
of lots and to 'reward' the owner by allowing a dwelling on half the normal lot area. This differs from the ability to amalgamate two or more
lots to create a lot that satisfies the respective minimum lot size – eg amalgamating one lot of 40 ha and one of 60 ha in the Barossa Range to
create a 100 ha lot.
Evidence shows there has been very limited take up of this option, however rather than a failure of policy, possible reasons include a lack of
incentive, want or need, or difficulty in ‘assembling’ the necessary allotments. A review of the concept itself is suggested including an
assessment of whether it is potentially flawed if the allotments required for amalgamation are part of a primary production enterprise in that
it may encourage the break-up of primary production land for the sake of allowing a dwelling to be built, and whether the current option
unfairly precludes just two lots being amalgamated which may be greater in area than if three were consolidated.
A thorough review is needed to explore if the current minimum lot size for dwellings in the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone,
Primary Production Zone: Moculta Precinct and Barossa Range Precinct, and Rural Landscape Protection Zone, and the amalgamation option
where relevant, should be retained or modified. Options include:



Reduce or increase minimum lot size required for a dwelling- eg 20 ha, 40 ha
Retain and expand Table Baro/10: Infill Dwelling Sites – eg to include sites that are unsuitable for traditional forms of primary production,
those that may benefit from reduced primary production, those which perhaps should not be used for primary production due to adjacent
sensitive uses; and where an owner has requested inclusion
Introduce precincts or policy areas comprising areas that are unsuitable for traditional forms of primary production and/or which should not
be used for alternative forms of primary production (eg intensive grazing) due to the presence of existing dwellings in close proximity
58 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers



Introduce ability to undertake major boundary realignment to create smaller allotments for rural living (perhaps clustered) while retaining
land for primary production in one larger allotment. Issues can arise with clustering as there will still be additional dwellings in a farming
area with potential for interface issues, unless they are clustered away from primary production areas or methodically screened
A strategic restructure approach allowing major realignments where existing allotments may be relocated some distance away – eg on the
edge of an existing town where they can be connected to services. This requires detailed work to identify ‘target’ and ‘recipient’ areas and
associated procedures and may also require various incentives
Introduction of a "transferrable development rights" option.
Intensification and corporatisation of rural activities
The Development Assessment Panel in its 2012 annual report identified for further policy consideration the use (and change of use) of land,
dwellings, and associated outbuildings (including adaption of existing or proposing new buildings) in rural areas.
The Panel requested Council to review the intensification and corporatisation of viticulture, agricultural, and other primary production land
uses which is potentially creating more interface issues with adjoining land and impacting on infrastructure such as carrying capacity of minor
rural roads. The Panel also noted that 'up-scaling' and value adding activities were evident in applications for wineries and a number of rural
living/hobby farming proposals in sparsely populated rural areas in the Barossa ranges previously used for grazing and having limited
infrastructure.
The Panel further suggested the review could focus on the definitions associated with rural activities and what is expected in the various rural
zones in respect to emerging trends and potential changes in primary production. It is considered definitions used for rural policy would benefit
from a review in response to identified trends and changes.
Non-rural and commercial land uses in rural zones
The Development Assessment Panel in its 2008 and 2012 annual reports noted that Council is likely to see an increase in family farms moving to
corporate ownership and while farming activities will still take place, it is in the form of consultancy services, contract services and farm
dwelling being used as a business office that will change land use.
59 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The Panel observed that currently a farm dwelling being used as an Office requires a change of land use even though it can be argued that the
primary “rural activity” remains the same, and that in the bigger picture is it this type of change in agriculture that requires some
consideration of what ‘rural activity’ is desired or considered normal activity associated with agriculture.
Council has also been asked to make adjustments to rural policies to enable veterinary consulting rooms, road transport terminals, on-site farm
warehousing and the like. In this regard it is noted while a nexus may exist between a veterinary consulting room and primary production,
introduction of such a use may impact on the character and amenity of a rural area.
Land division: creation of additional lots for primary production and tourism
Creation of additional lots in primary production areas is generally non-complying. Exceptions to this include division to create additional lots
of at least 40 ha in Precinct 5 Concordia, and lots of at least 1 ha for an existing state or local heritage place.
Section 8 of the new Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 arguably envisages creation of additional allotments provided they are
not for residential development (such a proposal must be refused). Residential development is defined as:
"residential development means development primarily for residential purposes but does not include—
(a)
(b)
the use of land for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary residential accommodation for
valuable consideration; or
a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primary production purposes;"
This implies that creation of additional allotments for primary production purposes and tourism is possible. A review of existing Development
Plan policies against the apparent legislative intent is required.
Hobby farm trends
The Development Assessment Panel in its 2012 annual report observed an evident trend to intensify and diversify land use with the growth of
hobby farms in what have traditionally been large rural holdings used for grazing purposes. The Panel noted that in some cases the increase in
rural activity places demand on natural resources and public infrastructure, and in other cases it will introduce new agriculture activity and
60 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
while low in scale, it may pose challenges between viticulture and broad-acre farming with the use of sprays and fertilizers, and introduction
of other issues including noise, views, odour and fire risk, which have been matters raised in recent representations on development
applications.
Intensive animal keeping and rural industries
Concerns have been expressed that Primary Production Zone PDC 25 which restricts establishment and expansion of "intensive rural industries"
in Precinct 5 Concordia is inappropriate in that the terminology differs from the Development Regulations definition of intensive animal
keeping, but also appears to preclude glasshouses which are not related to animal keeping, with alternative suggested wording being "Intensive
animal keeping should not be established".
If intensive animal keeping is not desired in the Primary Production Zone, then it should be listed as a non-complying form of development.
Curiously, intensive animal keeping is on-merit in the Rural Landscape Protection Zone where associated large buildings may be inappropriate
and it is suggested this should be reviewed. In addition a review should address the potential for large horticultural buildings and the like on
the valley floor and hills face areas.
Vineyards, wineries and ancillary development
Various issues relating to wineries and ancillary development have also been identified by business and industry groups and through routine
development assessment. These broadly relate to:






Ancillary and supplementary activities associated with wineries such as function areas
Potential to remove requirement for a cellar door to be on the same site as a winery
Policies relating to orientation of crop rows
Liquor licensing and development policy interaction
Minor building works associated with existing wineries
Wine Industry Impact Review recommendations
61 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Primary Production Priority Areas (PPPA) mapping and associated policies
The State government has prepared draft Primary Production Priority Areas maps with a suggestion that council may wish to identify these
areas and introduce appropriate policies that protect those areas from inappropriate activities such as non-primary production activities.
Aspects which need to be addressed include:




Query if areas of primary production significance should also be protected from inappropriate primary production activities - eg high quality
land currently used and suitable for viticulture should not be used for winery development or intensive hydroponic enterprises.
Wine Industry Impact Review recommended that high quality viticultural land be protected; however this is too narrowly focussed - eg high
quality cropping land should also be protected
Query if lower quality land should also be identified - ie primary production land that society could afford to 'lose' or that could be used for
intensive production such as hydroponic enterprises, intensive animal keeping etc, but still protected from inappropriate non-primary
production uses such as rural living
Need to 'ground-truth' mapping
Assuming the intent is to incorporate mapping, Council needs to determine how to best identify these areas, with possible options being as a
policy area, precinct or overlay. Showing it as an 'overlay' appears sensible; however Development Plans only contain a 'Development
Constraints' map, whereas designation as a PPPA should be seen as an "opportunity".
Zone structure and other items for review



Review appropriateness of the "all forms of development are non-complying" approach in the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region)
Zone and Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone.
Consider converting the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone to Primary Production Zone: Barossa Valley Region Policy Area in
accordance with the Planning Policy Library Version 6.0
The Development Assessment Panel in its 2012 annual report noted the nomenclature of the character preservation legislation with the use
of the term Barossa ‘Valley’. The Panel observed that this generic naming does not appear to be consistent with existing traditional
approaches to planning nomenclature for the region where there is a differentiation between the valley floor, ranges, and other plains
areas. It recommended a review of associated terms in the legislation and Development Plan.
62 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers

Concern that changes in list of non-complying development in Rural Landscape Protection Zone weaken previous 'protection' and that
increased scope for non-rural uses will be in conflict with the desired character for the zone. In this regard it is noted the Development
Plan utilises the Rural Landscape Protection Zone from the SA Planning Policy Library, which in respect to non-complying development,
changes from the previous "All kinds of development are non-complying except..." to "The following kinds of development are noncomplying...". Whereas previously only a select few items were on-merit, the new approach sees large increase in potential merit
developments, but also a change in the types of non-complying development - eg a Restaurant is now merit, whereas a Winery is now noncomplying.
Strategic directions

Undertake a thorough “Rural Areas Review” with specific focus on:
o Policies relating to dwellings in rural areas including the minimum lot size approach, infill dwelling sites list, and
amalgamation option
o Policies relating to vineyard planting and ongoing management
o Policies relating to wineries and ancillary development including cellar doors and hospitality activities
o Trends and issues in primary production surrounding ‘corporatisation’, viability, diversity, sustainability and valueadding and associated policy implications
o Potential incorporation of Primary Production Priority Areas mapping and associated policies
o Existing restrictions on intensive animal keeping and horticulture in the Concordia precinct
o Potential to establish non-rural and commercial land uses allied to primary production
o Land division potential
o Number and structure of existing rural zones and precincts
o Rural Landscape Protection Zone desired character and land uses
Possible amendments or action
 Changes to number and structure of
rural zones and precincts
 Changes to policies relating to:
o dwellings in rural areas
o vineyard planting and ongoing
Possible DPA or project
Rural Areas Review and
subsequent Rural Areas
DPA(s)
Priority
2013/14
63 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
o
o
o
o
o
o
management
wineries and ancillary
development
diversity, sustainability and
value-adding associated with
primary production
incorporation of Primary
Production Priority Areas
mapping and associated policies
restrictions on intensive animal
keeping and horticulture in the
Concordia precinct
non-rural and commercial land
uses allied to primary production
Rural Landscape Protection Zone
desired character and land uses
64 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
5. Hazards
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Emergency management and hazard avoidance
Policy 1 Decrease the risk of loss of life and property from extreme bushfires through creating buffers
around new growth areas that are adjacent to native bushland.
Policy 4 Integrate adaptation to climate change, disaster risk reduction and hazard avoidance policies,
standards and actions into strategic plans, Development Plan policies and development assessment
processes using best-practice models to:
- reduce the social, environmental impacts from extreme events
- achieve more consistent and rigorous decision-making for long-term land-use planning aimed at
reducing emergency and hazard risks
- enhance protection of critical infrastructure
- develop building standards and urban design approaches that create resilient environments for the
future
- reduce risks and protect natural areas and biodiversity
- protect human health and the environment where contamination is identified to have occurred
- adopt appropriate processes and methods when remediating contaminated land and ensure its
suitability for the proposed zoning
- address risk, hazard and emergency management issues in structure and precinct planning for new and
existing urban areas.
Policy 5 Minimise risk to people, property and the environment from exposure to hazards (including
bushfire, flooding, erosion, dune drift, and acid sulphate soils) by designing and planning for
65 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
development in accordance with the following risk hierarchy:
- Avoidance - avoid permanent development in and adjacent to areas at significant risk from hazards
unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding social, economic or environmental benefit.
- Adaptation - design buildings and infrastructure to minimise long-term risk.
- Protection - undertake works to protect existing development or facilitate major new developments;
such works include stormwater discharge management to accommodate higher tide levels.
The economy and jobs: Mining and resources
Policy 20 Designate and protect the high-pressure gas pipelines and ensure they are incorporated into
Development Plans and Structure Plans.
Water
Policy 8 Ensure appropriate policy links and consistency between Stormwater Management Plans,
Structure Plans and Development Plans to address stormwater and flood management matters.
Existing Development Plan policies
The Development Plan contains a variety of policies relating to hazards, summarised as follows:



“Hazards” module within the General Section. This was originally based on South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 4.1 but has
been subsequently amended by a Ministerial DPA. It is noted that the policies in the current Planning Policy Library Version 6 are more
comprehensive than in Version 4.1.
Flood hazards for Tanunda and Mount Pleasant are shown on respective "Development Constraints" maps, whereas flood hazards for
Nuriootpa and Stockwell are shown on Concept Plans.
No corridors are in place to recognise critical infrastructure but the following principles of development control in the “Infrastructure”
module seek to protect this infrastructure:
66 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
“12 Development in proximity to infrastructure facilities should be sited and be of a scale to ensure adequate separation to protect
people and property.
13 Incompatible uses should not encroach upon the easements of infrastructure corridors for existing and proposed transmission
lines.”
A need exists to recognise existing transmission-pressure gas pipelines and protect from further encroachment by residential development and
other sensitive land uses, unless suitable additional protection of pipelines is provided. Include consideration of a "Notification Area" concept.
Flood mapping approach
Flood hazards for Tanunda are shown on respective "Development Constraints" maps, whereas flood hazards for Nuriootpa and Stockwell are
shown on Concept Plans. Consistent approach needed.
Flood hazards for Mount Pleasant are also shown on respective "Development Constraints" maps. Accurate information is available for Nuriootpa
(refer Item 35). Data available for Stockwell may require review to determine if it is able to be used for a new Development Constraints Map.
Flood modelling and mapping
With the exception of Nuriootpa, Tanunda, Stockwell and Mount Pleasant the Development Plan does not identify flood prone areas in
townships or other affected areas. In addition, flood mapping for the mapped townships is based on old or inadequate modelling (see Item 35),
or the Development Plan adopts an inconsistent approach to mapping (see Item 103).
Council needs to identify those areas where appropriate flood hazard mapping needs to be introduced or updated with relevant prioritising.
Council also needs to consider if the Planning Policy Library module provides sufficient policy direction and control for our needs or if they
need supplementary policies tailored for local conditions.
Nuriootpa flood mapping
Implement relevant flood hazard mapping and other relevant policies/findings arising from the Nuriootpa Flood Investigation Report.
67 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The flood hazard mapping from the Nuriootpa Flood Investigation Report is of sufficient detail to be shown on respective Development
Constraints maps.
Bushfire protection mapping
Excluded areas sometimes match zone boundaries, sometimes not – eg portion of Precinct 36 Williamstown West is excluded.
Possible amendments or action
 Implement relevant flood hazard
mapping and other relevant
policies/findings arising from the
Nuriootpa Flood Investigation Report.
 Potential policies to recognise existing
transmission-pressure gas pipelines to
protect from further encroachment by
residential development and other
sensitive land uses, including
consideration of a "Notification Area"
concept
Possible DPA or project
Hazard Management DPA
Priority
2014/15
Hazard Management DPA
2014/15
68 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
6. Landscape, Interface and Natural Resources
6.1 Open space
3
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Open space, sport and recreation: Greater Adelaide Open Space System
Policy 1 Provide for a Greater Adelaide open-space framework that builds on MOSS to create quality
open space across the region. The open space will feature urban forests and parks, watercourse and
coastal linear parks, trails, greenways and green buffers, and sustainable recreation and sporting
facilities (see Map D20).
Policy 5 Provide open space in the new Northern Adelaide and Barossa regions’ growth areas by:
 … planning for a buffer between Gawler and new growth areas.
 …
 developing a defined and linked system of open space in and around Gawler, with the Gawler, South
Para and North Para rivers as its core elements.
Target C Prioritise the following activities for the Greater Adelaide open space framework:
 … developing the Gawler River linear park, which will link a system of open space in and around
Gawler with the Gawler, South Para and North Para rivers, by 2036.
69 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Greenways
Policy 9 Plan and develop a system of greenways across Greater Adelaide to link the open space system,
enhance urban biodiversity and encourage walking and cycling.
Policy 10 Establish greenways along the major transit corridors, watercourses and linear parks.
Policy 11 Plan and develop greenways to link parks, reserves and public facilities to provide walking
and cycling access.
Policy 13 Ensure that greenways are landscaped with local indigenous species where possible and
incorporate water-sensitive urban design techniques.
“Green belt”
The planning strategy proposes a “green belt” which will form part of the “Greater Adelaide Open Space System”. Map E6A more clearly
defines the extent of this open space area, showing the “Proposed Green belt between Gawler and Concordia” comprising portion of the 2007
extension area and extending along either side of the Barossa Valley Way to the edge of the urban boundary. This concept requires further
investigation regarding implementation – refer Section 1.1 of this paper.
Greater Adelaide Open Space System and Greenways
The Greater Adelaide Open Space System appears to include all land within the Rural Landscape Protection Zone, including private land and
public land in other zones containing reservoirs and forests.
The planning strategy is silent as to how the “greenways” concept will be introduced, governed and managed, in particular where it involves
private land. Further direction is required before associated strategies and policies can be formulated.
70 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Existing Development Plan policies
Conservation Parks
A request was received during the BDP and General DPA process to spatially represent and appropriately zone conservation and recreation
parks and reserves to reflect their use for conservation purposes, specifically to include the following Conservation Parks and Recreation Park
in the Conservation Zone in lieu of the Primary Production or Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) zones:
 Hale Conservation Park
 Kaiserstuhl Conservation Park
 Para Wirra Recreation Park
 Sandy Creek Conservation Park
 Warren Conservation Park
A change to zoning may have implications for adjacent land (eg introduction of associated buffer requirements) but is worthy of
implementation.
Possible amendments or action

Inclusion of conservation and recreation
parks in Conservation Zone
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
6.2 Buffer and interface policies
While the intent of policies relating to "spray shields" and "buffers" in the General Section Interface between Land Uses module and rural zones
is sound, as written they are confusing and lack guidance. For example, Primary Production Zone PDC 17 and Primary Production (Barossa
Valley Region) Zone PDC 21 state "Spray shields and biological buffer zones should be of a size and location that minimises any runoff onto
arterial roads, established along property boundaries with sensitive adjoining land uses, and appropriately landscaped." It is presumed the
intent is that where a solid barrier is used then runoff from the structure should not cause problems to an arterial road, but as written, runoff
onto any other road appears not to be a concern. It also implies that a vegetated buffer will involve runnoff which is unlikely, and it provides
no guidance as to the desired form of any buffer or "shield".
71 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
It is also noted that this policy does not apply to the Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone where significant horticulture and
viticulture also takes place. A review should also include whether policies relating to interface issues should be relocated to the General
Section in preference to individual zones.
Suggestions have also been made that stronger policies are required to emphasise that agricultural pursuits have priority, along the "right to
farm" approach, with a right to farm 'statement' applying to all titles in primary production areas. Unfortunately such an approach may not
adequately deal with what seems to be increasing interface issues between different forms of primary production, in particular where
vineyards are established adjacent to cropping and grazing enterprises with little or no separation between the two activities. The concerns
are paramount where the existing cropping or grazing operator may be forced to adjust previous crop or pasture management practices in
order to satisfy various industry or government standards, with subsequent negative impacts on productivity and sustainability. A review of
appropriate buffers and procedures including public notification is recommended.
Concerns also exist with General Section Interface between Land Uses PDC 13 and Concept Plan Map Baro/12 which requires a 200 m wide
buffer adjacent to the Gawler council boundary:
•
•
•
•
•
No indication of what form the buffer will take. What is purpose of the buffer – visual, noise, spray drift or simply as a non-developed
strip between existing and future urban development –ie is it trying to prevent encroaching urban development?
Is policy fair in that any buffer should be provided within the site of the ‘intruding’ activity and to not lose primary production land?
Boundary at northern and southern extent terminate at the edge of the map rather than on a cadastral boundary
The buffer has been applied to the existing rural living area at Kalbeeba “West”. How is it intended to implement that intended buffer –
remove existing development?
Buffer does not align with the “Gawler Buffer” proposed in the planning strategy, generally being smaller/narrower than the Gawler
Buffer.
Possible amendments or action

Review effectiveness and suitability of
existing buffer and interface policies
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Rural Areas DPA
2013/14
72 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
6.3 Biodiversity
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Biodiversity
Policy 1 Introduce a clear hierarchy of environmental assets to be protected to improve development
certainty and transparency ... Incorporate the protection of these areas into Development Plans ...
. Areas of high environmental significance
. Areas of environmental significance
. Areas designated for human use
Target A Protect 115,000 hectares (13 per cent of Greater Adelaide) of existing natural areas identified
as areas of high environmental significance in Map D19.
Target B Maintain the existing range of lower intensity land uses, such as primary production, across
156,500 hectares (identified as areas of environmental significance in Map D19). Where the retention of
lower intensity land use cannot be achieved, impacts will be minimised and offset.
Target E Minimise the discharge of stormwater, pollution and nutrients to freshwater, coastal and
marine environments through the adoption of appropriate water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) …
policies and targets into Development Plans.
73 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Existing Development Plan policies
The Development Plan does not recognise nor protect areas of high environmental significance, areas of environmental significance or areas
designated for human use.
Mapping of areas of substantially intact native vegetation
A Development Plan may include maps showing areas of substantially intact native vegetation which trigger Schedule 8 referrals for
development within, or within 20 metres of, the area shown on the map. In consultation with State government Council should identify if any
areas of the council qualify as an area of substantially intact native vegetation.
Review suitability of zoning of landcare reserve
Recreation Zone associated with landcare reserve at Altona includes private land - are owners committed to/aware of this? Is Recreation Zone
compatible with landcare intent or would Conservation Zone be more appropriate?
Possible amendments or action
 Amended zoning policies for landcare
reserve at Altona
 Investigate suitable mechanism to
incorporate protection of areas of high
environmental significance, areas of
environmental significance and areas
designated for human use into
Development Plan
Possible DPA or project
Miscellaneous DPA
Priority
2014/15
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
74 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
6.4 Sustainable and renewable energy generation
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Climate change: Gaining a competitive advantage in a carbon-constrained economy
Policy 20 Deem embedded and distributed renewable energy and smart grid/green grid technology as
complying or exempt development. ...
Policy 22 Introduce planning policies to encourage large-scale renewable energy projects to serve the
region.
Sustainable and renewable energy generation
Council commissioned a review of renewable energy policies10 to inform the Strategic Directions Report process. This review was underway
when the interim Statewide Wind Farms DPA and initial Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale Protection Districts DPA were introduced. Accordingly
some of the findings are no longer relevant; however the following lists the key findings of the review:


10
The planning strategy establishes a mandate for Council to review the renewable energy policies within its Development Plan to ensure
that sufficient flexibility is provided to allow new green technologies and industries to emerge and flourish.
A gap in Development Plan policy exists in relation to renewable energy facilities of a domestic scale as well as larger facilities such as
solar farms.
Barossa Council Renewable Energy Policy Review 2012 undertaken by URPS
75 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers






Regulatory or legislative change is required to recognise/define the various forms of renewable energy, and to introduce associated
public notification criteria
While smaller facilities of a domestic scale will not have the same visual impact as larger facilities, it is recommended that policy
guidance be provided in terms of their siting and design. For example, it is recommended that structures such as wind turbines and
stand-alone photovoltaic panels should not be located within front yards of dwellings in townships. This is due to their potential to
negatively impact on streetscape character.
Within residential areas, it is recommended that the development of wind turbines be limited to one per dwelling and solar
photovoltaic panels be limited to 24 panels (when not located on the roof of a dwelling). This will ensure that renewable energy
facilities remain ancillary to the main residential land-use and do not impact on other objectives such as private open space, site
coverage, rain water tanks and effluent disposal areas.
The Development Plan should differentiate between the rural and residential areas. In general, it is considered that renewable energy
facilities within the rural areas can be of a larger scale than those in the residential areas.
Given the scenic nature of the Barossa Valley, it will be important for the visual impact of facilities to be carefully managed. Therefore,
new policies relating to large-scale renewable energy facilities in the rural areas should ensure that:
· Facilities, such as solar farms, are not visible from designated tourist routes or are set-back at least 100m from other public
roads. Landscaping should also be established along viewlines to screen the facilities.
· Solar farms achieve a separation distance of at least 500m from dwellings on adjoining allotments where clear views between
the dwelling and the facility are available. A reduced separation distance may be appropriate where landscaping is included
along viewlines to screen the facility.
· Associated infrastructure such as roads has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demands of the facility.
· Access to the facility is available for heavy vehicles and CFS trucks.
Renewable energy facilities, such as solar farms, should be ancillary to the main primary production land-use in the rural zones.
Possible amendments or action
 Request State government to amend
regulations and/or legislation to better
define renewable energy facilities and
to introduce appropriate public
notification criteria
 In collaboration with relevant State
Possible DPA or project
Priority
2014/15
2014/15
76 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
government agencies investigate
potential revised policies for renewable
energy facilities including policies that
distinguish between rural and urban
environments
Possible DPA or project
Priority
77 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
6.5 Water
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Climate change: Water
Policy 1 Incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) techniques in new developments to achieve
water quality and water efficiency benefits...
Policy 3 Mandate WSUD for new developments (including residential, retail, commercial, institutional,
industrial and transport developments) by 2013 ...
Policy 5 Protect water supply catchments and the watershed by preventing high-risk development in
catchments and watershed areas that are considered vulnerable, consistent with the water quality risk
hierarchy ... associated with the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed priority areas, and ensure that new
developments have a beneficial, or at least neutral, impact on water quality in the watershed.
Target A Reduce demand on mains water supply from new development through the introduction of
water-sensitive urban design.
Target E Protect and maintain the water supply catchment of the Mount Lofty Ranges, which comprises
159,000 hectares as identified in Map D23.
Target F Protect and maintain the water reservoirs as identified in Map D23.
Target G Protect from inappropriate development and maintain prescribed water resources, as
identified in Map D24.
78 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed and three associated subregions
are shown on Map D23.
Map 24 shows the majority of the Council area lies within four water
resource management areas: Barossa Valley, Marne River and
Saunders Creek, Western Mount Lofty Ranges and Eastern Mount Lofty
Ranges.
79 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Box 5 associated with Policy 5 above explains the three subregions:
Existing Development Plan policies
The majority of the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed is included within the Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone, with parts around
Williamstown being within the Township and Rural Living zones, parts at Cromer and Mount Crawford being within the Rural Living Zone, and
parts around Mount Pleasant being within the Township and Deferred Urban zones.
80 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The “Mt Lofty Watershed Boundary” (sic) is shown on various Development Constraints overlay maps. There is no direct or meaningful link
between these overlay maps and other policies - eg brief reference is made to the watershed within the Township Zone in relation to Mount
Pleasant, but nothing in respect to development within the portion of the watershed in the Williamstown township.
Water Management Area mapping
Request received from Natural Resources, SA Murray-Darling Basin to include maps showing Water Management Area in Development Plan. This
action should extend to all Water Management Areas.
Barossa Prescribed Water Resources Area Water Allocation Plan
Consider relationship (if any) between development policies and Water Allocation Plans (WAP), for example whether zoning and/or policy areas
should reflect surface and watercourse management zones within a WAP.
Possible amendments or action
 Include mapping of Water Management
Areas
 In consultation with State government
identify and incorporate into the
Development Plan any areas of
substantially intact native vegetation.
 Introduce policies to better link
development policies and Water
Allocation Plans (WAP), for example
zoning and/or policy areas to reflect
surface and watercourse management
zones within a WAP
Possible DPA or project
Miscellaneous DPA
Priority
2014/15
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
81 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
7. Transport and Infrastructure
7.1 Transport
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Transport
Policy 1 Protect the transport functionality of road and rail corridors through planning policy in
Development Plans.
Policy 2 Designate and protect strategic freight corridors as identified on Map D15.
Policy 4 Identify and protect land for planned upgrades of major transport networks in Structure Plans.
Infrastructure
Policy 2 Identify major infrastructure requirements (including communications technology, sporting
hubs and embedded generation) and integrate them with Structure Plans to ensure that new
infrastructure to support new residential and employment precincts is effectively coordinated.
The planning strategy shows the following:
•
A line indicating proposed transport infrastructure variously shown as:
o
“Potential corridor (indicative route only) on Maps D1 and D4
82 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
•
o “Potential mass transit (indicative only)” on Maps D3, D5, D6, D13, D14 and D21
o “Other corridors (indicative corridor route only)” on Maps D2, E6 and E6A
o “Potential mass transit to Concordia on Map E6A
o “Potential North East Bypass around Gawler” shown on Map D15
“Proposed major electricity capital works (location indicative)” shown on Map D18
Existing Development Plan policies
Concept Plan Map Baro/2 shows provision is to be made for a 10 metre road widening and no vehicular access on Tolley Road, with the intent
to protect the long term potential for a heavy vehicle road link/bypass along Samuel, Tolley and Old Mill roads. This desired outcome should be
reflected in principles of development control in each adjacent zone. There is also a need to clarify how far along the road these policies
apply as the concept plan is unclear.
Possible amendments or action

Review policies regarding potential
heavy vehicle road link/bypass along
Samuel, Tolley and Old Mill roads in
particular clarify extent of desired road
widening and restricted access on Tolley
Road.
Possible DPA or project
Priority
Townships DPA
2014/15
83 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
7.2 Infrastructure
30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
Planning Strategy policy/target
Infrastructure
Policy 4 Identify and preserve critical infrastructure corridors (including major transmission lines,
substations, water and gas pipelines, and new utility corridors) through Structure Plans for new growth
areas ... .
Policy 5 Ensure Structure Plans and Development Plans identify and preserve buffer zones around water
treatment plants.
Policy 11 Identify locations and plan for new cemeteries to accommodate future demand.
There are several easements which traverse the Council area containing the following infrastructure:



SA Water Corporation water pipeline
Seagas pipeline (the "Angaston Lateral"
ElectraNet major overhead transmission lines
This infrastructure comprises a significant component of the State’s high voltage power transmission network and commercial gas transmission.
This significant public and private infrastructure must be protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses; the infrastructure corridor
must be protected from being fragmented by land division and therefore ensuring on-going access for maintenance is available and that the
security and reliability of the networks are not compromised. No residential development should infringe on the corridors or existing
84 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
easements. These corridors do provide the opportunity for co-locating compatible land use activities such as other appropriate infrastructure,
at-grade car parking and roads, linear parks or cycling/walking trails.
It is a requirement that development comply with AS2885 (Pipeline Gas and Liquid Petroleum) to ensure minimum pipeline safety requirements
are met.
The Development Plan does not identify or preserve critical infrastructure corridors such as major transmission lines, substations, water and
gas pipelines. Note: While the planning strategy policy only refers to structure planning, it is considered this issue is sufficiently important to
be considered outside growth areas, including primary production areas and townships. The Development Plan also does not identify or
preserve buffer zones around water treatment plants. These corridors and buffers serve three main purposes: to protect the establishment of
new facilities, to protect ongoing operation and expansion/upgrading of existing facilities, and to manage hazards and risks by avoiding
intrusion by sensitive land uses and activities. In this regard the issues can be addressed either through the Hazard Management DPA or
Miscellaneous DPA.
Cemeteries, natural burial grounds and crematorium policies
With the new Burial and Cremation Act 2013 about to come into operation it is timely to consider if existing development policies adequately
recognise and provide for the establishment of a cemetery, natural burial ground or a crematorium.
Cemetery zoning
Queries have been raised as to whether the Nuriootpa Cemetery should be in the Community Zone in lieu of Residential Zone and if the
Angaston Cemetery should be in the Community Zone in lieu of Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone.
Possible amendments or action
 Additional policies to guide development
of cemeteries, natural burial grounds
and crematorium, including designation
of where these facilities should not be
established
Possible DPA or project
Miscellaneous DPA
Priority
2014/15
85 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
 Inclusion of Nuriootpa Cemetery in
Community Zone in lieu of Residential
Zone
 Inclusion of Angaston Cemetery in
Community Zone in lieu of Primary
Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone
 Identify and preserve critical
infrastructure corridors
 Identify and preserve buffer zones
around water treatment plants
Possible DPA or project
Miscellaneous DPA
Priority
2014/15
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
Hazard Management DPA or
Miscellaneous DPA
2014/15
86 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
8. Administrative
Home Industry Zone - envisaged forms of development
The list of envisaged forms of development in PDC 1 in the Home Industry Zone includes "shop ancillary to industry"; however Shop or group of
shops" is listed as non-complying. Is this intended to refer to a small retail area which is not a separate land use? If so, to avoid doubt the noncomplying list should include an exception for Shop to indicate that a small shop associated with an industry on the site and say up to a certain
size (eg 50 m2) is merit.
ResCode complying and public notification criteria and relationship with Development Plan
Ensure consistency between Residential Development Code and Development Plan - ie do current policies contradict or conflict with Schedule
1A, Schedule 4 provisions in respect to setbacks, floor areas etc for outbuildings, extensions, new dwellings etc, and Schedule 9 in respect to
public notification. Example is an outbuilding in Residential Zone where Development Plan refers simply to 100 sqm floor area, whereas
Schedule 9 Part 1-2(d) has additional criteria relating to wall heights, siting etc with an interpretation being that the Development Plan
overrides the regulations
Quality of public realm landscaping and open space
In 2009 the Panel received a number of major Land Division Applications where a detailed landscape/open space plans if submitted would have
assisted the decision making process. These plans could address such issues as the proposed design elements for land that will become public
open space. Furthermore issues which could be considered include the linking of new and existing open space areas with shared use paths for
pedestrians and cyclists, location and types of street trees and other related matters. The requirement and detail of these plans could be
addressed by changes to the Development Plan and at an administrative level.
Open space contribution
The Panel in its 2008 Report requested that Council consider if the Development Plan could contain more detailed policy statements on
developer land contribution for open space when required as part of a Land Division application. In particular where a parcel of land is granted
87 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
to Council for open space, is not suitable for the purpose granted, it may be difficult to maintain by Council or to be used by the community
etc.
Council is addressing this issue through comprehensive open space and recreation provisions that have now been drafted as part of Council’s
Better Development Plan & General Development Plan Amendment. These provide not only for generic requirements relating to the provision
of recreation areas and open space but also incorporate performance criteria relating to siting, design, and layout of such spaces and areas.
Council also hopes to prioritise a council-wide open space study and strategy in the near future.
Public notification for outbuildings
Under the previous Development Plan an outbuilding no greater than 135 sqm in rural living zones was Category 1, and Category 2 if more than
135 sqm. Under the current Rural Living Zone an outbuilding greater than 135 sqm is no longer listed in Column 2 of the public notification
table, requiring reference to Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations which states that an outbuilding greater than 54 sqm is Category 2. To
avoid doubt consideration should be given to reinstating this item as Category 2.
An overall review of the relationship between Residential Development Code provisions, Schedule 9 criteria for public notification and the
Development Plan for outbuildings is also required. Schedule 1A and Schedule 4 contain provisions in respect to setbacks, floor areas etc for
outbuildings, verandahs and the like, and Schedule 9 in respect to public notification for certain minor developments. The Development Plan
separately nominates outbuildings as Category 1 or 2 but only in respect to floor area - eg up to 100 sqm in the Residential Zone is Category 1 whereas Schedule 9 Part 1-2(d) has additional criteria relating to wall heights, siting etc. Legal advice received is that as the current floor area
criteria is the only criteria to satisfy, the Development Plan policies override the regulation irrespective of height, location etc.
Township Zone, Recreation Policy Area - public notification for lighting
Review if lighting for night use of facilities in the Township Zone Recreation Policy Area 6 should be Category 2 consistent with the approach
taken in the Recreation Zone.
88 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Shops in Rural Landscape Protection Zone
PDC 3 from BDP Planning Policy Library: Rural Landscape Protection Zone (relating to shops) has been excluded without justification. Note: this
zone is now a policy area in BDP Planning Policy Library - Version 5.0 - Primary Production Zone: Landscape Protection Policy Area.
Inclusion of this principle [3 A shop in the policy area should have a gross leasable area that does not exceed 20 (optional variable) square
metres] would be a major policy shift from the Rural (Hills Face) Zone where any shop was/is non-complying. The implications of allowing
shops of even a small scale requires detailed analysis
Zoning of community facilities
Gomersal Road rest area
Query if Gomersal Road rest area should be in Recreation zone or similar in lieu of Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone.
Recreation areas and drainage reserves zoning
Query if major recreation areas and drainage reserves should be in Recreation Zone or Recreation Policy Area - eg current approach for ovals is
inconsistent:
 Angaston: Residential
 Nuriootpa: Recreation
 Tanunda: Residential
 Lyndoch: Township/Recreation Policy Area
 Williamstown: Township/Recreation Policy Area
 Mount Pleasant: Township/Recreation Policy Area
Education facilities zoning
The Development Plan adopts different approaches to the zoning of education facilities with some included in the Recreation Zone, some in
the Community Zone, and the remainder in the Township Zone etc. A consistent approach is necessary, with the following sites requiring
specific consideration:
 Nuriootpa High School - Community Zone in lieu of Recreation Zone?
 Nuriootpa Primary School (15 Buna Terrace, Nuriootpa) - Community Zone in lieu of Recreation Zone?
89 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers




Redeemer Lutheran School (Lot 500 Vine Street, Nuriootpa) - Community Zone in lieu of Residential Zone?
Nuriootpa TAFE (Lots 212 and 213 Old Kapunda Road, Nuriootpa) - Community Zone in lieu of Residential Zone?
Tanunda Lutheran School (16, 18 and 20 Jane Place and 12, 14 and Lot 476 Maria Street, Tanunda) - Community Zone in lieu of
Residential Zone? (Note: Lot 476 is in Recreation Zone)
St Jakobi school (Lots 28 and 29 Lyndoch Valley Road, Lyndoch) - Community Zone in lieu of Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region)
Zone?
Various zoning anomalies
Approx. 30 instances of zoning and zone boundary anomalies have been identified, for example private land being included in the Community
Zone and Recreation Zone. These anomalies could be rectified either through the Miscellaneous DPA or where located within a township or
settlement, through the Townships DPA.
Various errors, anomalies and revisions
Various errors and opportunities to revise property addresses have been identified which should be corrected either through a Section 29
amendment or during the next Development Plan consolidation process. These are summarised below:










Industry (Barossa Valley Region) Zone - exemption for shops
Location Map Baro/34 - remove school notation
Outdated cadastre details on Bushfire Protection Area maps
Primary Production Zone - land division exception criteria
Primary Production Zone - restaurant exemption
Rural Property Addressing Project implementation
Settlement Zone - dwelling exception
Table Baro/1 - dual motel entry
Rural Living Zone - second dwelling criteria
Various typographical errors in Development Plan text
90 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Possible amendments or action
 Correct errors, anomalies and revise
property addresses

Adjust zoning and zone boundary to
address known anomalies
Possible DPA or project
Section 29 amendment or
during the next
Development Plan
consolidation process
Miscellaneous DPA
Priority
2013/14
2014/15
91 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
Table of Acronyms
BIL
Barossa Infrastructure Limited
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through Urban Design
DPA
Development Plan Amendment
DPPA
Designated Primary Production Areas
DPTI
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
HELSP
Housing Employment and Land Supply Program
MOSS
Metropolitan Open Space System
PAR
Planning Amendment Report
PIRSA
Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA
PDC
Principles of Development Control
SATC
South Australia Tourism Commission
SDR
Strategic Directions Report
SSA
State Statistical Area
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WAP
Water Allocation Plans
WHS
World Heritage Site
WSUD
Water Sensitive Urban Design
92 | P a g e
The Barossa Strategic Directions Report 2013 – Background papers
The Barossa Council
93 | P a g e