MONARTO residents planned to launch a court challenge yesterday against the approval of a paintball facility at Monarto.
Monarto South resident Annette Mitchell, who owns an adjoining property, said she planned to lodge an appeal with the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court yesterday, challenging the development approval granted to Adelaide Hills Develop-ment Services on behalf of international paintball company Delta Force Paintball.
“This development would destroy the peaceful farming nature of the area, trample the environment, trash the birdlife and wildlife and yet approval was granted despite the council’s own planning officers recommending it be rejected,” she said.
Easter Hills and Murray Plains (EHMP) Catchment Group program manager Steve Coombe said he was shocked the council’s Development Assess-ment Panel had approved the plan, saying it had gone against the advice of its own planning department.
“It didn’t fulfil native vegetation, environmental, tourism or primary production requirements,” he said.
“I am astonished by that decision and the process council must have gone through - that there could be so much going against a proposal that didn’t fit the development plan but would go ahead anyway.”
Mr Coombe said one of the two titles of the properties involved was zoned light industrial while the other was zoned primary production.
“The Monarto Heritage Agreement on these properties had just been renewed and there is extensive native vegetation across the properties,” Mr Coombe said.
Murray Bridge council acting sustainable development manager Mark Kwiatkowski said planning staff had not agreed the paintball facility was not in keeping with the council’s Development Plan.
“The proposal was considered on all the aspects of the Development Plan and on balance was considered to address the majority of the relevant provisions and on this basis was considered suitable to grant,” Mr Kwiatkowski said.
He said if an appeal went before the ERD Court, the council would defend the Development Assessment Panel’s decision.
Murray Bridge council Development Assess-ment Panel presiding member Iris Iwanicki said the panel had, as a result of representations from the public, asked the developer to clarify management options, but had decided that the application was not seriously at variance with the Development Plan.
“Upon receipt of the additional information, the panel as a body took into account the objects of the zoning and relevant Development Plan policies in considering the nature and extent of the proposed activity,” she said.
“This process included consideration of the activity in a central part of the subject land, under strict management, the extent of buffer on the subject land and the nature of the locality.”