Adelaide Brighton Cement may relocate overseas if residential development continues in Port Adelaide, taking 400 jobs
ADELAIDE Brighton Cement has warned it will relocate overseas – and take 400 jobs with it – if the State Government’s push for more residential development in the Port continues.
- Adelaide Brighton Cement opposes housing plan for Port Adelaide
- Buffer needed on Le Fevre Peninsula to separate industry from homes
- Push for tighter controls over dust from Adelaide Brighton Cement
PUSH us out of the Port and we’ll go overseas – that’s the message Adelaide Brighton Cement has handed the State Government.
The cement works’ operations manager, Felicity Lloyd, delivered the blunt warning at a state Environment, Resources and Development Committee meeting last week.
She was asked by the committee’s presiding member, Labor MP Tom Kenyon, if the plant could be relocated to make way for nearby housing developments and how much such a move would cost.
“From a cost perspective it is highly unlikely in my view that it would be replaced (in South Australia),” Ms Lloyd told the committee.
Greens MP Mark Parnell then suggested the company, which employs 400 people in SA, would choose to relocate in China and Ms Lloyd nodded in agreement.
“We have significant infrastructure in terms of access to major gas lines, et cetera,” she said.
“The access to the Port is critical to our operations and sustainability.”
The revelation came as Ms Lloyd appeared before the committee to argue against changes to development plans for the Port Adelaide land parcels Port Approach and Cruickshank’s Corner.
The government is proposing to allow short-term accommodation at Cruickshank’s Corner – in a bid to turn the area into a tourist attraction – and to build new homes at Port Approach.
Adelaide Brighton Cement, which has been in the Port for more than 100 years and contributes $400 million to the state’s economy, is opposing the proposed changes to the waterfront developments.
The EPA has changed its environmental recommendations for development in the area after the cement works adopted more environmentally friendly practices.
The EPA has recommended reducing the separation boundary from 800m to 400m from the company’s southern stockpiles of cement – meaning homes could be built closer to its operations. It says 400m would have “minimal impact on resident and long-term accommodation”.
But Ms Lloyd told the meeting the 400m limit might eliminate the risk from dust particles but noise pollution was still an issue.
“As a result we believe the changes to the development plan policy that may allow an encroachment of sensitive land uses into this zone may have ... a very real impact on the operations of the Birkenhead plant in this state in terms of employment and wider economic benefit,” she said.
In its submission, Adelaide Brighton Cement says it fears the changes would trigger more complaints from residents about the plant’s activities – a point the committee took on board.
It has now made a recommendation to Planning Minister John Rau that the amendment be altered to only allow accommodation at a distance of 800m.
“The committee was of the view that it was worth thinking of the other implications. PM10 (dust particles) may have been considered but the other nuisances may not have been,” Mr Kenyon told the Portside Weekly.
Birkenhead resident and member of the Port Adelaide Resident’s Environment Protection Group Julie Conway said it was a wise decision but that there was still not enough concern for existing residents.
“The government is interested in the impact on the Port’s development but not on the existing residents,” she said.