Subdivisions Proceeding in Adelaide's 'Visionary' Hills Face Zone

Adelaide's Hills Face Zone (HFZ), a protected landscape established in 1967 to preserve the city's scenic backdrop and the biodiversity of the Mt Lofty Ranges, is facing scrutiny over approved land subdivisions. Despite state government legislation explicitly forbidding subdivisions and permitting only unobtrusive, low-intensity development, the State Planning Commission has approved 11 land division applications within the zone over the past decade. This includes a significant realignment of 13 existing allotments owned by Boral Resources Group at Stonyfell Quarry, raising questions about the effectiveness of the zone's protective measures.

Pamela Smith, a senior research fellow at Flinders University and an expert on the HFZ, describes the zone as a 'visionary' initiative by former SA planning director Stuart Hart. Smith views the HFZ as one of the most successful pieces of legislation stemming from the original Metropolitan Adelaide Transport (MATS) Plan, crucial for safeguarding a landscape that represents European colonial expansion. However, the recent approvals for subdivisions, even if involving realignment of existing boundaries, appear to contradict the core principles of the HFZ, which are designed to maintain the zone's natural character and prevent fragmentation of land.

“

A total of 11 land division applications comprising land falling within the Hills Face Zone have been lodged with and approved by the State Planning Commission within the last 10 years.

The Department for Housing and Urban Development spokesperson confirmed the approvals but stated that specific details for each application were unavailable. While some approvals may relate to land with 'existing potential for residential development' subject to HFZ policy, the fact that subdivisions are occurring at all challenges the integrity of the zone's protection. The sale of land at Stonyfell Quarry, with realigned titles potentially creating three separate residences, highlights the tension between development pressures and conservation goals. This situation prompts a local perspective that questions whether the 'visionary' plan is being adequately upheld or if commercial interests are gradually eroding its protective intent.

“

It was probably one of the only truly successful pieces of legislation to come out of the original MATS [Metropolitan Adelaide Transport] Plan.