lyndoch dpa review of land capability and interface issues ... · vineyard planting which is...

Lyndoch DPA Review of land capability and interface issues;

Interface Management Recommendations

Prepared for : Connor Holmes/ CN Scalzi Investments Pty Ltd

By : Charles M Drew

Date : 21 June 2012

Scholefield Robinson Horticultural Services Pty Ltd

Report : Lyndoch DPA – Land Capability and Interface Issues Page ii

Lyndoch DPA Review of land capability and interface issues; Interface Management Recommendations Prepared for: Connor Holmes/CN Scalzi Investments Pty Ltd Prepared by: Charles Drew 21 June 2012 Scholefield Robinson Horticultural Services Pty Ltd ACN 008 199 737 ABN 63 008 199 737 PO Box 650, Fullarton SA 5063 Ph: (08) 8373 2488 Fax: (08) 8373 2442 [email protected] www.srhs.com.au


Report : Lyndoch DPA – Land Capability and Interface Issues Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Engagement .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Preparation .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Sources of Data and Information..................................................................................................1 2.1 Documents ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Inspection and Description ............................................................................................................................. 1

3 Issues................................................................................................................................................2 3.1 Land Capability .............................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Interface influences......................................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Recommended Interface Management ........................................................................................................... 3

4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Curriculum Vitae – Charles M Drew

Appendix 2 Current Concept Plan (3695_202_MO Concept r9-01.jpg)


Report : Lyndoch DPA – Land Capability and Interface Issues Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Engagement In an email dated 7 March 2012, Michael Osborne, Director, Connor Holmes requested a fee estimate for a report relating to a rezoning application within the designated Lyndoch township boundary. The report was to address:

• “Capability of the land;

• Interface influences;

• Recommended interface management”.

Following provision of the fee estimate, Charles Drew, Principal Agribusiness Consultant with Scholefield Robinson was engaged to provide the report.

1.2 Report Preparation I, Charles M Drew, Agricultural Economist and Principal Agribusiness Consultant with Scholefield Robinson Horticultural Services Pty Ltd (SRHS), have prepared this report. My curriculum vitae is at Appendix 1. I have had more than forty-five years experience as an agricultural economist in a wide range of agriculture and agribusiness predominantly in but not confined to the southern half of Australia. I have provided reports as an expert witness in approximately 200 matters.

2 SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION

2.1 Documents In an email dated 8 March 2012, Michael Osborn provided “current Council policies re urban/interface” numbered 9, 10, 11 and 13. He also provided “comments from the EPA in respect to the Statement of Investigations” as an attachment to an email dated 28 March 2012.

Connor Holmes also provided me with a map showing the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone boundary as it applies to the DPA as an attachment1 to an email dated 30 March 2012. At a subsequent meeting on 18 April, Michael Osborne provided me with a map prepared by Connor Holmes titled “Land Division Concept Option 4” dated 13 March 2012. This map has now been superseded with a map provided as an attachment to an email dated 20 June 2012 and is shown as Appendix 2. It is assumed to be current for the purposes of this report.

2.2 Inspection and Description A map of the area affected and a concept plan2 were provided with the email dated 7 March 2012. Prior to the inspection on 23 March 2012, I also downloaded a photomap from NearMap3.

1 3695_103_Zoning n Policy-01.jpg 2 3695_101_Area Affected r2-01.jpg; 091130_Concept Plan Option 2.pdf

3 http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.607612,138.876725&z=17&t=h&nmd=20101007



On inspection, I noted that the subject land was undulating to hilly and was all well covered with pasture. The subject land adjoins an existing residential development to the east, and the northern boundary is Gilbert Street, which has residences on its northern side.

The western boundary is Gods Hill Road which is bordered by mature trees. Land to the northwest of the northern half of Gods Hill Road (across the road from the proposed development) comprises a large home and a relatively undeveloped and apparently unutilised area which extends to Gilbert Street. The driveway to the home is approximately halfway along the Gods Hill Road boundary of the proposed development. I assume that the driveway also services the Dutschke winery.

The southern half of Gods Hill Road adjoining the proposed development is also relatively densely populated with mature trees. Grapevines are planted west of Gods Hill road approximately 25 metres from the road fence for about the southern third of the length of road adjacent to the proposed development. The grapevines appear well screened by the trees.

The southern boundary of the proposed development comprises two storm water detention areas (one at the eastern end and the other at the western end), an internal road, the remaining approximately one fifth of the southern boundary comprises the boundary to two lots. The stormwater retention area art the eastern end of the southern boundary adjoins an existing open space area south of the existing development. The area to the south of the proposed development is a pastured and treed area. The southern boundary of the eastern end of the proposed development is a minimum of 70 metres from a small planting of vines which are partly shielded by mature trees.

3 ISSUES

The issues addressed below in this report are those identified in the initial email from Connor Holmes and stated in Section 1.1 above.

3.1 Land Capability As stated in section 2.2 above, the subject land is undulating to hilly, well covered by pasture, and has scattered mature trees. In my opinion, the land is suitable for grazing, broad-acre crops or horticulture including vines, which would require additional water for irrigation. The subject land is adjacent to the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone. It would be unlikely to be used for broad-acre crops as it is too small scale to be economic and the mature trees would affect the efficiency of cultivation. The availability of water for irrigation for horticulture would require investigation.

3.2 Interface influences Attachment 1 to the Minute forming Enclosure to EPA 05 19881 identified interface issues due to the subject land being located adjacent to the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone. These included the possibility of residents being subject to effects of primary production activities, and the possibility of residential encroachment hindering businesses when undertaking approved activities.

The southern boundary of the proposed development adjoins the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone while the southern third of the western boundary of proposed development is separated by Gods Hill Road from the Primary Production (Barossa Valley Region) Zone.

The land south of the southern boundary of the proposed development is mostly pasture with some mature trees scattered across the area. There are vines planted south of the development.



However, the nearest residential block boundary is about 80 metres from the closest corner of the vineyard planting which is screened by large mature trees and a designated open space area.

Given the existence of a number of spaced mature trees in the area immediately south of the proposed development, it is unlikely that there will be an extension of vineyard planting or that the area close to the proposed development will be cropped. Consequently, the major primary production activity is likely to remain pasture based mostly grazing, which restricts the range of likely interface issues. Possible interface issues include drift from fertiliser spreading and/or herbicide spraying, and noise from fodder conservation activities. Herbicide spraying is unlikely because of the proximity of vines, and fertiliser spreading is relatively benign and unlikely to occur more than once a year.

The southern third of the Gods Hill Road boundary of the proposed development has vines planted to the west of Gods Hill Road. The closest vines are about 50 metres from the residential block boundaries on Gods Hill Road and are screened by several “rows” of mature trees and by the road. While the vines are to the south and west of the proposed development, any vineyard spraying is unlikely to occur in periods when the winds are from the south west as south-westerly winds are usually too strong and blustery for effective spraying. Spraying is much more likely to be restricted to calm periods or periods of mild easterly breezes. Further, these residential blocks appear to be accessed through internal roads rather than from Gods Hill Road. Thus the boundaries will be back fences, and architectural design methods of minimising any interface issues will be able to be employed.

The northern two-thirds of the Gods Hill Road boundary of the proposed development adjoins what appears to be a large residence and a relatively unused “backyard” to the residence which also has mature trees along the boundary. Interface influences affecting the proposed residential development on the other side of Gods Hill Road appear unlikely. However, the entrance lane from Gods Hill road to the large residence also appears to be the entrance to a winery as there is a sign on the road. This raises the possibility of traffic issues, particularly night time grape deliveries. The winery appears to be well screened from the proposed development by mature trees along Gods Hill Road and along the entrance lane and it is not visible through the trees from the road. I am informed that the winery is relatively small scale and operates “without a large scale bottling plant, that is crushing, fermenting, barrel maturation and bottling only in small scale either by hand or small screw cap machine with hand labelling”4.

3.3 Recommended Interface Management As described above, the majority of the identified interface issues are ameliorated by roads along the interfaces, by stormwater detention areas, and by relatively complete screening by mature trees both on the road enclosures and within private property. Maintenance of the mature trees is important and the effectiveness of the screening could be improved by establishment of mid-level and ground cover vegetation.

4 Email from Connor Holmes dated 18 April 2012.



4 CONCLUSION

In my opinion, interface influences as a result of the proposed development are minor. Spray drift is unlikely to occur and the areas where it may occur are well screened. Traffic issues regarding the winery are unlikely due to the small scale of the winery and traffic movements are also well screened. Land adjoining the southern boundary is likely to be used only for grazing which gives rise to few if any interface issues.

SCHOLEFIELD ROBINSON HORTICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD

CHARLES M DREW Principal Agribusiness Consultant

Appendix 1

Curriculum Vitae – Charles M Drew

SCHOLEFIELD ROBINSON HORTICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD 118A Glen Osmond Road, Parkside SA 5063 Australia Ph: (08) 8373 2488 Email: [email protected]

ACN 008 199 737 ABN 63 008 199 737

PO Box 650, Fullarton SA 5063 Fax: (08) 8373 2442

Web Site: www.srhs.com.auOffices in Adelaide and Mildura

Charles M Drew Principal Agribusiness Consultant

Areas of Expertise • Agribusiness economics • Investment analysis and diagnostic review • Economic loss assessment • Agricultural extension

• Program and project evaluation • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

Qualifications and Awards

• B.Agr.Sc., Melbourne University, 1966 • Dip.Agr.Ext., Melbourne University,1967 • M.Sc. (Ag.Eco.), University of Western Australia, 1975 • Prof. Cert in Arbitration and Mediation, Uni. of Adelaide, 1999 • Fellow (and past National President), Australian Institute of Agric.

Science and Technology.

Career Summary Charles Drew has extensive experience in agribusiness finance and marketing, in ADR and as an expert witness, in project appraisal and evaluation, in rural adjustment, and in agricultural extension and training. Before joining SRHS in 2001, from 1990 he was a senior then principal consultant with AACM International Pty Ltd (subsequently Dames & Moore, then URS). Prior to that, he was responsible for rural assistance lending in South Australia, a District Manager in the Victorian Department of Agriculture for 11 years, and worked for Wesfarmers for 6 years.

Range of Experience • Fire: loss assessments - farm, hay etc; compensation negotiations. • Expert Witness: Economic loss assessments (>175) – abattoir fire, effects

of farmer injuries or death, effects of malfunctioning machinery and agricultural chemicals, family conflicts, rural planning guidelines etc.

• ADR: arbitrations/expert determinations - grape supply contracts, crop risk management tools; mediations - farmers and financiers, intergenerational farm transfer, chicken meat growers and processors.

• Feasibility studies, diagnostic reviews and development of strategic plans for a range ($1m to $30m) of agribusiness enterprises (including Kava in Vanuatu), for national industry bodies, and for industry extension services.

• Business plans - national nuclear collection (grape vines, citrus); regional - beef cattle marketing, grain processing and marketing.

• Review and evaluation of investment programs in RD&E and on ground implementation for NLP and NHT, for Catchment Boards, Regional conservation programs and for specific RD&E programs.

Affiliations • Member, Ag Institute Australia (Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology/Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants) with Certified Practising Agriculturist (CPAg) accreditation.

• Member, Graded Arbitrator and Accredited Mediator, Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Appendix 2

Current Concept Plan