Concerns regarding the Southern Barossa Winery & Tourism Accommodation proposal.
Barossa Region Residents’ Association does not support the proposed Southern Barossa Winery & Tourist Accommodation (SBWTA) project due to the following 8 key concerns:
1. Deep concerns with Bushfire risk and insufficient Infrastructure:
The proposed development has potential for up to 1000 guests and staff on site, larger than several of Barossa’s townships, and with far greater intensity:
Six-storey 150-room hotel
Restaurant accommodating 300 patrons
Function / conference facilities up to 100 attendees
Spa/wellness facilities
500 tonne Winery & cellar door, with restaurant & function space for 450 patrons
This is similar to the population of the town of Mount Pleasant (1058), and for context, the population of Stockwell is 516, Penrice 486 and Eden Valley 390.
The intensity of this development has implications on roads, water and other infrastructure – however the most significant concern is bushfire safety, due to the location in a high-risk bushfire zone.
In January 2020 the 23 suites of Southern Ocean Lodge were razed to the ground during the Kangaroo Island bushfires, despite a comprehensive bushfire management plan and high-tech mitigation systems. The maximum capacity of the lodge was 43 guests plus staff.
We believe that approving a large-scale development with capacity for 1000 people in a high-risk bushfire zone represents an unacceptable risk.
We invite board members drive along Tweedies Gully Road and Hoffnungsthal Road, to observe the restrictions of one narrow road providing only two options for exiting the location, plus the difficulties of safely evacuating hundreds of patrons and staff, while simultaneously providing access for CFS appliances.
The sloping site, with the hotel positioned at a high point, represents an increased danger as fires spread much faster uphill, pre-heating fuel, with speed potentially doubling for every 10 degrees of slope.
Concerningly, the Bushfire Risk Assessment & Bushfire Emergency Management Plan commissioned by the developer references an incorrect location in Naracoorte and therefore incorrectly describes the topography as ‘flat to slightly undulating’. (Please refer attached extract from EIS Appendix 17).
As the SBWTAP’s site has slopes of 14 – 15%, the Bushfire Risk Assessment’s conclusions about fire behaviour, exposure and risk management would appear inherently unreliable.
One recommendation in the Bushfire Risk Assessment is to “Consider a ‘site closed’ policy on declared Catastrophic Fire Danger Days.” In addition to the real risk to lives and assets, it would appear that re-locating the development to a township, already designated as a bushfire “safer place” by the CFS, would avoid this type of business upheaval.
2. Too big for rural land within the Character Preservation District:
The scale and intensity of a 150-room, six-storey hotel, over approximately 14,000sqm floorspace, is not envisaged in the Character Preservation Act, which specifically protects the agricultural land and rural vistas of the Barossa. There is provision for small-scale Tourist Accommodation on rural land within the Character Preservation district, with state planning policy providing guides such as:
Tourist Accommodation is ancillary to the primary production
The Planning and Design Code guides tourist accommodation on rural land to be ancillary to primary production. That is, small-scale and subordinate to farming, and not to become the dominant use. It aims to add value to the primary production without jeopardising the core agricultural activity.
A standalone 150-room hotel, restaurant and wellness centre cannot reasonably be characterised as ancillary to the existing vineyard or a winery of 500 tonne.
New Tourist Accommodation buildings 100m² floor area, or Tourist Accommodation in renovated out buildings 150m²
The above dimensions are guides, not fixed sizes. Nonetheless, a 150-room six-story hotel, approximately 14,000sqm (page 3 Assessment Requirements) is clearly exponentially larger than envisaged on rural land.
3. Avoids assessment by the local Council Assessment Panel:
In 2023 the Supreme Court quashed the development approval of a 150-room hotel on rural land in the Character Preservation district (GEBER).
The SBWTA development application was not lodged at the local council level, where it could be assumed it would fail due to the GEBERruling.
The SBWTA requested that the Planning Minister declare the project an Impact Assessed Development, thereby avoiding assessment at the local Council Assessment Panel, and removing the opportunity for verbal representations from the community. This sets a precedent for other largescale projects on rural land to avoid local assessment, and removes the voice of the community.
4. No current data provided to validate the demand for additional hotel rooms in Barossa:
A narrative regarding the Barossa’s need for hotel accommodation has been amplified in the media and by supporters of the SBWTA project.
BRRA and community members have sought data to substantiate these statements, from the Tourism Minister, South Australian Tourism Commission and discussions with Barossa Australia. It is apparent that no recent research has been conducted to analyse the demand.
The Barossa Regional Profile 2024, produced by South Australian Tourism Commission, provides the following accommodation occupancy statistics: (https://tourism.sa.gov.au/media/a1aknbix/barossa-december-2024.pdf)
”In 2019 prior to COVID, average occupancy for the Wine Regions was 61%, this fell to 44% in 2020, rose to 65% in 2022, 63% in 2023 and fell in 2024 to 60%.
The wine regions include accommodation data for the Adelaide Hills, the Clare Valley and the Barossa. Data is not provided for each specific region.”
The key demand report undertaken by consultant ‘Hotellerie’ has been kept confidential by SBWTA, so the case for an additional hotel cannot be substantiated.
It should also be noted that two luxury hotels have been approved in the Barossa, The Oscar (Seppeltsfield) and Nexus (Lyndoch), with Sandy Creek being assessed currently, and two hotels contemplated for Tanunda.
5. No alternative sites explored or analysed:
In the section ‘Project Alternatives’, the assessment framework provided by The Minister stated:
“Where relevant, feasible alternatives considered for the proposed project should be presented in the EIS … Where necessary for the assessment, each alternative and its potential impacts should be discussed in sufficient detail to enable an understanding of the reasons for preferring certain options and courses of action while rejecting others.”
Alternative sites and analysis of their feasibility have not been included in the documents provided by the developer, although locations do exist across the Barossa which are appropriate for large-scale hotel developments.
The Barossa has capacity for large-scale hotel developments on appropriate sites. In a recent meeting with The Premier, Planning Minister and Minister for Trade, Investment & Local Government, BRRA outlined the numerous locations already available for large-scale hotels, including sites currently zoned for Tourist Accommodation (eg near The Novotel) and additional sites within townships.
BRRA is preparing an Investment Roadmap for the Premier and Ministers, to formalise this conversation, and would be pleased to provide this Investment Roadmap to board members once finalised.
6. True Economic impact
BRRA believes that large-scale Tourist Accommodation should be located within Barossa townships, so that the economic benefit is shared incidentally with local cafes & restaurants, retailers and traders. The rural location of the self-contained SBWTA carries the risk that much of the visitor spend will remain on site.
7. Lack of transparency re identity of winery business:
The developer’s EIS refers to ‘'winery operator, details of whom will be advised at a later date.'
If there is a Barossa winery partner for this project, why is its identity not disclosed, consistent with disclosing and promoting IHG as the hotel operator? This lack of transparency around the winery entity raises reasonable questions about the status and certainty of the winery component, and if any commitment has been secured. Noting that Tourist Accommodation on rural land should be ancillary to primary production.
8. Does not align with BRRA’s position on Tourist Accommodation developments:
“Barossa Region Residents’ Association supports the development of premium, luxury tourist accommodation within the Barossa, appropriately designed and appropriately located.
We value the important economic benefit and job opportunities that increased tourism brings to our region, and we advocate for large-scale premium tourist accommodation to be located within Barossa townships, so that the economic benefit is shared with local cafes & restaurants, retailers and traders.
Barossa Region Residents’ Association supports the Character Preservation Act and recognises that the Barossa’s scenic vistas have a unique economic value, attracting visitation to the Barossa.
We support the current state planning policy that provides for small-scale tourist accommodation on rural land, to ensure the preservation of the Barossa’s vital agricultural land and valuable rural landscapes.”