THE State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) is facing a legal challenge over its decision to grant development consent to the $500 million Springwood housing development at Gawler East.

SEA Gas, operator of the Adelaide to Port Campbell gas pipeline which traverses part of the Springwood Development, filed a notice of application for review in the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court last month, following the SCAP’s decision to green-light the 1300 home land division on February 13.

Prior to Springwood’s approval, safety concerns over the proximity of the gas pipeline to proposed homes persisted from SEA Gas.

Upon the development’s approval, Springwood was ordered to undertake a new safety management study in relation to the pipeline.

The SCAP assessed the four Springwood development applications as “category one” developments, meaning no public consultation was required to be held prior to the commission making a decision.

In its ERD Court submissions, SEA Gas has argued the applications should have been classified as “category three” developments, which would have required a full public consultation process before any assessments could be made.

If the review is successful, it could void SCAP’s decision to grant development consent and would see the approval process start again, with a full public consultation process prior another approval.

According to the court documents, SEA Gas learned of the applications’ “category one” status the day before the SCAP met to deliberate development consent.

“The applicants (SEA Gas) are significantly and adversely affected by the determination of SCAP that the Purported Development Applications are category one as it has denied the applicants the opportunity to act as representors,”the submission read.

“It is the applicants’ position that the appropriate classification is category three and that, as representors in a category three application they would have the right to make representations to SCAP and rights of appeal which both been denied to the applicants.”

Springwood project Warwick Mittiga, speaking to The Bunyip, rejected this claim, saying SEA Gas was asked to make a representation to the SCAP, but declined.

According to SEA Gas’ ERD documents, the SCAP’s classification of the Springwood applications rests on a clause in South Australia’s Development Regulations 2008, which states a division of land “where the land is to be used for a purpose which is, in the opinion of the relevant authority, consistent with the objective of the zone or area under the relevant development plan, other than where the division will, in the opinion of the relevant authority, change the nature or function of an existing road” will have category one status.

SEA Gas is looking to argue the developments would change the “nature or function” of an existing road, meaning the applications should have been classified as category three developments.

Mr Mittiga said the housing development would continue to press forward and SEA Gas’ court challenge was an “attempt to circumvent State Government planning decisions”.

“We fully support the regulator’s conditions and will assist as required under those conditions as SEA Gas manages its pipeline.  Obviously as a private land developer we are not responsible to meet SEA Gas’ requirements of its gas legislation, a fact confirmed by SCAP and the regulator,” he said.

“It is disappointing, then, to see a private investment group like SEA Gas pursue obscure technical appeals through the ERD Court in what we can only see as an attempt to circumvent State Government planning decisions.

“The planning conditions clearly manage any pipeline safety aspects of development on our land, so it’s difficult to understand what these actions are designed to achieve other than potential financial benefit to the private investor which owns SEA Gas.”

The court documents and an accompanying letter from SEA Gas’ lawyers Johnson Winter & Slattery were tabled at a special Gawler Council meeting last week.

At the meeting, elected members voted unanimously to express their concerns over the Springwood development’s “category one” status.