DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, $17,703,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, $2,510,000

Membership:

Mr Griffiths substituted for Mr Williams.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan substituted for Mr Pederick.

Ms Sanderson substituted for Mr Treloar.

Witness:

Hon. P. Holloway, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr I. Nightingale, Chief Executive, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr J. Hanlon, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr A. Grear, Director, Planning, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr A. McKeegan, General Manager, Finance, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Ms K. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, West Beach Trust.

Mr R. Pitt, Chief Executive Officer, Adelaide Cemeteries Authority.

Mr M. Loader, Acting Director, Strategic Policy, Department of Planning and Local Government.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments reopened for examination and refer members to the Portfolio Statements, Volume 1, Part 4.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Given that the West Beach Trust and the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority are part of this, if there are any questions relating to these two entities, perhaps we could deal with them first so we can let them go back and run their respective organisations.

The CHAIR: Certainly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, it is my intention to ask the questions in the order they appear on the program sheet, so questions relating to the West Beach Trust and the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority will be first. There are only a couple of questions in each of those areas, given that they are relatively small in relation to the budget. I will start with the West Beach Trust. Referring to Budget Paper 5, page 56, I note that there are three projects in this year's budget. Can you advise if all of last year's projects—which I believe total some $4.05 million—were completed on time, by June 2010, and on budget?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will ask Kate if she can answer that.

Ms WILLIAMS: The majority of projects were completed on time and within budget, but there certainly were some projects that have been brought forward into the 2009-10 year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You will understand if I like better words than 'majority' and 'some projects'; I would like specifics, please, if I may, through the minister.

Ms WILLIAMS: We have in the order of 200 capital works projects that range from a small value to a large value. So, in terms of the amount of projects, I would prefer to take that on notice and answer that question for minister Holloway at a later time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, 200 projects for $4 million?

Ms WILLIAMS: They range from $2,000.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I assume you are only interested in—

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the major ones, yes; if I may, please.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Perhaps if we put a threshold figure of, what, $100,000 or something like that?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would probably be happy with that figure actually. No, if we can make it $10,000; any that were still outstanding as at 30 June, minister, please.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We can do that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As an extension of this area though, minister, can you provide me with a breakdown of the costs of the annual program of the trust, which I understand is some $1.97 million.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Again, I will ask Kate, who has all the figures. It is the total figure—

Mr GRIFFITHS: —of the annual program, which is on Budget Paper 5, page 56.

Ms WILLIAMS: It is $1.974 million.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, so what is that actually made up of?

Ms WILLIAMS: It is per site. So, we break our business down into different business units.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Does this relate to the 200 projects that we are talking about for the $4 million also, or is it completely different?

Ms WILLIAMS: Sorry, some were brought forward from 2008-09 to 2009-10.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think that is those projects.

Ms WILLIAMS: They are broken down into the skate park, our caravan park, our resort, our boat haven, our corporate services, our Executive 60 course, our function centre, our food and beverage outlet, the Patawalonga course and our reserves.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The dilemma, minister—and the reason for the question, I suppose—is that the budget papers themselves are very brief in relation to the trust and where the expenditure goes. I am quite happy to accept this as information that will be provided at a later date, but I would appreciate if there is an opportunity to get a breakdown of that.

Ms WILLIAMS: Certainly.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We can do that. Perhaps if you wish to visit and have a look at it, the trust would be happy to accommodate you or any of the members who wish to have a look at what they do down there, and they can explain it all to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is the end of the West Beach Trust questions. Thank you very much. Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, Madam Chair, if I may?

The CHAIR: Indeed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I note on Budget Paper 5, page 46, that in last year's budget the Enfield Mausoleum was identified at an estimated total of $1.2 million, but this year has increased to $1.8 million. Can you give me some reasons as to why this has occurred?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Perhaps I can ask Mr Pitt to clarify that.

Mr PITT: I can clarify that. In January this year we expanded the project and went out to a bill of quantities. We have now had an official bill of quantities done and the project has actually been costed at $2.1 million. That is based upon a DTEI bill of quantities information provided to us. The $1.2 million was based upon an open-air crypt and a conceptual plan at the time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As an extension of that, how do you actually fund the project then?

Mr PITT: We self-fund it; no borrowings whatsoever.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Therefore, it is from fees that families pay for the remains of their loved ones to be interred?

Mr PITT: Correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Do you have some level of reserve then that provides you with the capacity to fund this without going to borrowings?

Mr PITT: We currently have some investments of about $2.5 million with Funds SA.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In an average operation—sorry, minister, I should direct the questions through you.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I was just going to say that the annual report, which should probably make some of those financials clear, is being prepared and should be tabled in parliament within the next few weeks. That has some of that information in it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for that, minister. This is the same reference number: I am advised that the annual program for expenditure has decreased by $34,000. Can you confirm that that is correct? If it is, what cuts have led to this saving?

Mr PITT: I would have to take that on notice. I would have to look into that for you. I am sorry, I do not have the information at hand.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Of the annual program?

Mr PITT: My understanding is that this financial year the annual program is $3.5 million in total, of which $2.1 million is the mausoleum.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is the confusing part, because the budget papers, for public non-financial corporations, Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, on page 46, list the mausoleum as being $1.5 million expenditure this year in an annual program of $1.427 million—so $2.927 million—but you are quoting higher figures than that. Is that because of the increased cost of the mausoleum?

Mr PITT: That is correct. It went back to the board in May, and in May our board approved the additional expenditure, to a maximum of $2.1 million, on the mausoleum.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have to ask the obvious question, then. Given that the budget was presented on 16 September and is meant to reflect the most accurate information available to the Treasurer through all the departments, why in fact are the figures provided in the budget papers different from what your board endorsed in May of this year?

Mr PITT: My understanding is that we are required to forward our budget to the Treasurer by February and it is approved. The figures in February are based upon the figure provided by the concept plan costing, not the bill of quantities costing, which came through later in May.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand your reasoning and I can accept February for a normal budget presentation date, but when the budget itself is delayed by three months—and I will direct the question to you, minister—isn't there a review of the public non-financial corporations to ensure that their reporting period for budget purposes is actually altered a bit to reflect the most accurate information?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am sure like everything else there is a cut-off date and that is really a matter for the Treasury, I guess. Without knowing the details I am not sure what the cut-off dates are but, as I said, the annual report of the cemeteries authority is just being prepared. I think they are due to be submitted by the end of September. It has just come to me and I think I will be tabling it very soon. That will probably cover a whole lot of the issues that you are raising, I would assume, in terms of outlining those financial details. I guess there is a cut-off date for those reportings. I am not sure whether the financial people—

Mr PITT: The cut-off date for preparing our budget is the first Friday in February. We have to have it forwarded.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I must admit, minister, I am rather flabbergasted by this fact that the budget papers do not reflect what was known to the board before the end of June. Anyway, I do understand the point that it is not an impact upon the taxpayers of the state. It is based upon a user-pay basis, so therefore the expenditure is related to the revenue of the receiver, but the principles to me seem very wrong when budget papers do not actually reflect indeed what the expenditure expectation is at the time of the budget being presented. That just flouts the rules attached to budgets, to me; but I shall accept the answers provided.

I suppose if there is a recommendation I can make to you from an opposition's perspective, it would be that when the budget is presented after the expected time frame that the period upon which information can be fed through is adjusted also. With those few brief comments, I just indicate that is the end of my questioning for the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority.

The CHAIR: Thank you. In which direction are we going now?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Urban Development and Planning, which is a very interesting area, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: All areas are interesting in estimates, member for Goyder. Some are more interesting than others.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True.

The CHAIR: Minister, would you care to introduce your new adviser?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think I introduced John earlier. If I could now just make a few brief comments in relation to the urban development and planning portfolio. Since the report of the steering committee into planning and development was finalised in 2008, this government has been striving to implement its key recommendations. The key elements of the planning and development reform strategy adopted by this government comprise:

a 30-year plan to properly manage Adelaide's growth and development;

a huge investment in building efficient transport corridors that encourage the creation of new commuter-friendly neighbourhoods within existing suburbs;

a 25-year rolling supply of broadacre land to meet the residential, commercial and industrial needs of a growing population and expanding economy;

simplified and faster assessment of new housing and home renovations; and

five regional plans to help guide the development of the state outside Adelaide.

Research commissioned by the Planning and Development Review Steering Committee estimated these reforms will provide a boost of almost $5 billion to the South Australian economy as they are rolled out across the industry and will go a long way in helping to ensure that home ownership in this state is more affordable and urban development is placed on a more environmentally sustainable footing.

This government embraces the housing and development industry in this state as a key driver of economic prosperity. This portfolio has the ability to unlock the vast economic potential of our city by fostering investment in jobs and housing within the metropolitan area. This will ease the pressure to develop on our urban fringes. By concentrating our efforts on major transport corridors, up to 80 per cent of our existing suburbs, and the characteristics that make Adelaide unique, will remain unchanged.

The Department of Planning and Local Government has the lead role in introducing the new governance measures that will allow us to implement the vision contained within the 30-year plan. Through the development plan amendment process and specific structure planning for state significant areas, the department will guide the implementation of the new planning policies required to deliver on the aims and principles of the 30-year plan.

I will briefly mention some of the key developments in the sector. In February this year the government finalised the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide after months of extensive consultation with the community, local government and industry groups. We have also established the Government Planning Coordination Committee, which brings together agency chiefs and local government to drive a whole-of-government approach to the implementation of planning policies and targets.

Since 2009, the government has begun to roll out the residential development code, a 'tick the box' system for assessing residential housing and home extensions to make the process of building a home faster, simpler and cheaper. We have invested more than $75 million in the past 8½ years to support local councils to improve public space in South Australia through the Open Space and Places 4 People grants schemes. Projects supported by the Planning and Development Fund include the River Torrens Linear Park and Coast Park.

We have begun the process of creating a 15-year supply of ready zoned land to support housing and employment growth throughout greater Adelaide. Although this process has initially targeted land on the urban fringe, the next stage of the rezoning will focus on structure planning along key transport corridors within suburban Adelaide.

We have finalised work on the Housing and Employment Land Supply Program, which has been just released today and is a significant volume. It is a comprehensive study of the land identified by the government for development that will provide a road map for ensuring we deliver on the 15-year target for ready zoned land.

The Department of Planning and Local Government has begun work on the five region plans that will help to support growth in regional South Australia. These region plans help to determine where and, just as importantly, where not to allow development of housing and job-generating employment land throughout the state.

In conclusion, we have made significant progress in implementing the reforms identified by the Planning and Development Steering Committee. We could have sat back and allowed Adelaide to grow in an ad hoc and unsustainable manner but, instead, we have taken a long-term view to set a course for how our city can grow during the next 30 years in a way that supports a vibrant and liveable community while protecting both our productive primary production land and environmental assets.

There is still much work to do, but this is a 30-year program that is necessary for ensuring that our state can cope with the expected increase in our population and the demand for jobs that will coincide with that growth. The budget allocations for this portfolio will support that necessary work.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, given that you have referred to it in your opening comments, I will ask a question that refers to the Housing and Employment Land Planning Supply Program report released today, as you mentioned. There is no direct budget line for this, Madam Chair, but the minister has referred to it as part of the 30-year plan, which is certainly a feature of this budget.

The CHAIR: Obviously, the minister has raised it in his statement. Are you happy to go down this path, minister?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Absolutely.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The release, only several hours ago, provides little opportunity for the opposition to review all of the document, but there are a couple of areas I would like to ask some questions on. The first is quite general as to how many sites are identified in the plan released today for potential development that were not actually included in the 30-year plan.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the 30-year plan outlined the broad direction of where Adelaide would grow, and in particular identified the broad principles, as well as those greenfield areas. The Housing and Employment Land Supply Program report puts a whole lot more data that subsequently has been collected and a whole lot more detail into that, whereas the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is a fairly broad match. Here we have a greater level of detail.

Whereas our original 30-year plan presented the spatial and land use frameworks that set out 14,200 hectares for new growth areas based on mixed use development, we protected 115,000 hectares of environmentally significant land and up to 375,000 hectares of primary production land and talked about 14 new transit-oriented developments and more than 20 sites incorporating the principles that govern transit-oriented development, with the housing and land supply program we have gone to a new level of detail, and that is something we intend to present annually. I will ask Mr Nightingale to comment.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: The Housing and Employment Land Supply Program is the detail that underpins the work, as the minister mentioned, in the plan for Greater Adelaide, so it looks at existing land and land use and at where and how particularly employment land can be ready to be zoned and it fills the substance behind why you would be looking at rezoning the land and, importantly, it is a scorecard. As the minister mentioned, it will be a mechanism that we will review annually and look at how well the department and the government is rezoning land to meet the objectives, whether employment land, urban infill or the rezoning of land. It is a more detailed report than you see in the plan for Greater Adelaide.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As a supplementary, my presumption is that the ownership of the land incorporated in the latest report therefore is somewhat varied—some crown land, some LMC, some privately held, some by community groups and a mixture of that. How will negotiations occur or will it just be a matter of identifying a potential opportunity with a parcel of land, no matter what it is currently used for, and then the scope exists for the controlling authority over that land to pursue a development opportunity at a future date? How do you actually intend to roll it out so it has some structure to it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is a detailed question and we could talk about it for a long time. Clearly some of the work the government has been doing to date has been about rezoning some of those greenfield areas. You could talk about Buckland Park, Gawler East, Mount Barker and other areas. We now need to look at what is happening within existing parts of the city, and that is where, after all, under the 30-year plan about 70 per cent of our development at the end of that 30-year period would expect to take place. We are doing some structure planning and now we have begun—

The CHAIR: Excuse me, minister, I apologise: could the person with the mobile phone turned on perhaps turn it off or on to silent, please.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are currently looking at the detail of particularly the inner city areas because we have two areas for Adelaide's growth: greenfield growth, and the 30-year plan target will, towards the end of that period, provide about 30 per cent of the growth—it is obviously providing more at present—and the 70 per cent is within the current urban growth boundary.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question was quite broad in its nature and I will get on to specifics about some of the areas, such as Buckland Park and Gawler East, that you spoke about previously. Page 61 of the report released today refers to Globe Derby Park being in private ownership and intended to be rezoned from 2013. I am intrigued as to how that process works, given that that has a usage already which relates to an industry that exists in this state. Indeed, what is the intention for that? How do you manage that?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously, we rely on the input from local government, agencies and a whole range of people. Perhaps I could ask either Ian or John to talk about how that is all done.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: I think the guide that this creates is a mechanism to look at strategic rezoning of land, but it does not change existing land use. So, you could have existing land use, including the example you are giving, and you rezone around it; then over time the uplift would be around that. It would be up to the owner of the land to determine the best use of the land.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, when we had the original 30-year plan, we did talk extensively to local government. So, to give you a specific example, Salisbury council were very keen that we examine the options around Bolivar. So, we have agreed to look at the potential of some of that land being used for sites. We have had proposals from the owners and developers who are interested, for example, in looking at whether there is any potential for the salt fields just north of Adelaide to be used. So, a lot of that work was done.

With the 30-year plan, there was a very extensive program looking at land that was potentially available. Now, some of it of course is owned by the LMC, specifically owned by government for the purpose of housing or industrial use. Other land is in private ownership, so we have tried to collate all that information. There is no point in just putting land there that has not been proposed for development because that would be a futile exercise.

The other important thing, too, is that there is a gross figure for land that we use but, in fact, it will be a smaller proportion—about a 40 to 60 per cent reduction. So, if one has 1,000 hectares, about 40 or 60 per cent of that will effectively not be used for residential.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will let Mr Hanlon explain it because he has actually been involved in this for a number of years. As I said, it actually began in the lead-up negotiations to the 30-year plan, but it is also now ongoing in much more detail as we work through the individual plan. So, we are actually just getting into more and more detail, but I will ask Mr Hanlon to explain.

Mr HANLON: The entire land supply program is a gross figure of land that we consider for rezoning. As you have pointed out, that land needs to be discounted for a number of reasons. Some are about infrastructure requirements for that land, some are about open space, and some are about the fact that that land will never actually be rezoned as residential or taken up as residential. As you have pointed out, it has other purposes and other uses within that region. So, the figures you see are gross figures that are then discounted off to a net figure, and that then gives you a certain yield to give you the number of dwellings in a particular region.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Hanlon, through the minister, I certainly was not going to divide the total amount of hectares by 350 square metres for an allotment to be created and then work that out. I understood that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Some people in one part of Adelaide tend to do that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, well, it depends on how much you understand it, I suppose. Minister, if I can just ask one final question on the plan released today then. It refers to page 61 again, in the Northgate area with the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre. I am aware of a statement from what might have been a Mid-Year Budget Review announcement or, indeed, a budget announcement concerning the creation of some allotments there.

I have a property that I live in while I am in Adelaide and I drive past that area a lot, so I know that a part of the area has been cleared. Can you just confirm how many allotments are created as part of that development; and, indeed, does this document refer to creating additional open space there for development to occur for residential purposes?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to the latter question, there are obviously formulas under the development plan. When you rezone land, a minimum of 12.5 per cent has to be made available for open space, or else there are payments made into the Planning and Development Fund. Depending on who is doing a lot of those larger subdivisions, they will master plan the whole area. I think that by and large now, particularly as we are moving towards more dense development, we tend to, necessarily, have more open space available.

One problem that Adelaide faces is that in a lot of suburbs you are getting what I call the two-for-one developments, where you will have a block of land that was of a certain size back in the 1950s or 1960s, it will be divided into two, and you will have a duplex built on it. When you have that sort of development taking place you tend not to look at the overall impact on the character of suburbs.

What we would like to do with a lot of redevelopment—whereas that will always have a place, that higher density on a one-by-one basis happening throughout Adelaide, it has, after all, been happening for decades now—what we would like to see through the redevelopment of degraded industrial land, for example, and other areas along corridors is a more orderly, more comprehensive development take place, where you actually look at it in its totality so that you get better open space outcomes and so on.

If you look at developments in Europe and the United States, for example, where you have higher density, often they will have very good open space areas that are attractive and that people like so that you can have more people living in an area—much more than parts of Australia—but still with an open space that is widely appreciated by people. So, it is a matter of planning at a scale; it is the scale of development that gives the opportunity. In relation to your specific development—I am not sure, was it Northgate or—

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is identified at the bottom of page 61 as being Northgate, yes.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think that is a joint venture with the LMC and CIC.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Lightsview is a development with the Canberra Investment Company, I understand that, but the Hampstead site, in particular—and I probably did not clarify it very well in my previous question—does this document identify an additional development taking place beyond that which has already been announced?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It may not. We would have to check that. All the information here is supplied to us and we have to rely on the accuracy of the information that is—

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is a very knowledgeable chap behind you shaking his head, minister, when I posed that question.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it does not identify an additional one, but I guess it is there now, it is being developed. If you look at the maps in there you will see that there is colour coding of areas that are likely to be developed in the next two years. What we have tried to do is to get the detail. The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide marked out the growth and various principles, but this gets down to a much finer level of detail. What we have to do now is to go into even more detail than that through structure plans and precinct plans into specific areas. As I said, this is a level of detail that we have not had before, and given that it is going to be an annual document it will be of great benefit to local government and various sectors of industry in understanding what is happening and what is available.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister, for the answers on that area. I will become a bit more specific in my questions now, so not quite as broad as I have been. On this occasion I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.9. I note the objective of the urban development and planning program 'leading and presenting South Australia's land use and development planning'. The development plan amendments are, indeed, integral to land use and development planning. I note in particular the Mount Barker urban growth DPA. I wonder if you can inform the committee of what the estimated time frame is for you to approve or refuse that DPA.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to Mount Barker we are still going through the process. I think there is one final public meeting tomorrow evening in relation to that, so that process has not been completed. The Development Policy Advisory Committee will then prepare its report in relation to that. It will review all of the submissions as well as the presentations that were made at those public meetings. When I have the advice of the advisory committee on the submissions I can consider what decision I will make on that development plan amendment.

I obviously do not want to say too much about the process, because it is still underway, but we did make it clear right from day one that we are also considering infrastructure issues. I am sure the honourable member would be well aware, as a former CE of a local government, that ordinarily development plan amendments do not have infrastructure details in them. However, when we have been looking at these new areas—and Gawler East would be an example, I am sure the member for Light would be aware—we have been looking at infrastructure issues concurrently with these larger developments.

Mr Hanlon has been involved in some of those issues—and they have been ongoing and parallel with this process—to consider some of those major issues in relation to road, water, sewer and similar infrastructure provisions. While those discussions are not part of the DPA process, and never have been, they are still very important to inform it. We have had a number of meetings with the council in relation to those. We are obviously hoping to finalise this process by December, but obviously it will depend, to some extent, on DPAC.

Membership:

Ms Thompson substituted for Mr Geraghty.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister, for the answer. You referred, in the first part of your answer, to the fact that the last public meeting is being held this evening. Have you or one of your delegates attended any of those public meetings and, if so, in the view of the person who attended what was the resounding public opinion expressed throughout them?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is interesting that you should ask that, because I was asked a question in parliament by Mr Parnell, who said that anger, emotion and frustration were palpable at the meeting. However, there has been a whole lot of letters written since to the local paper in the hills and also The Advertiser yesterday saying that that was totally untrue, that everyone was very objective and logical. So, I have obviously been misinformed by Mr Parnell in relation to that.

Andrew Grear, the Director of Planning Policy, has had the pleasant duty of being at the meetings and will be there tomorrow night. He has certainly been present at those meetings. As I said, Mr Hanlon has also been involved in numerous discussions with the council in relation to infrastructure issues. So, contrary to what is often reported, we have been closely involved in it.

I might say that it is not normally the position that the minister would go to public meetings on DPAC, because, after all, the role of DPAC is to advise the minister. I believe that if I were invited to attend those meetings, as I said in an answer in parliament, inevitably people would be saying, 'Well, look, the minister's here; he should answer this or that question,' but then I would be involved in the statutory process. I believe that the appropriate course of action is to enable DPAC to get on with its job as an independent body without the minister looking over their shoulder and giving advice at those meetings.

Let me also say on the record that I have had a number of meetings in the last few years with not just with the mayor, chief executive and other people from Mount Barker council, but I have also attended a number of other public meetings, including when we had the 30-year plan consultation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just for clarification of the answer, if a departmental officer has attended, my presumption is that they have therefore spoken and it has been announced that they are there and what they are doing there. Mr Hanlon is nodding his head in agreement. Has some level of report been provided to you after each of these public meetings to reflect what was discussed and what the general consensus was of those who attended?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What I really need from DPAC is their advice. They will obviously go away and give me their advice. However, I think it is important to place on record that DPAC's charter is to consider the representations on the development plan itself. I have said publicly and in parliament that it is not the job of DPAC to review the 30-year plan proposals. The 30-year plan—which was widely consulted on; it was out for a significant length of time—was endorsed in February as the planning strategy for the region, so the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is now part of the planning strategy.

Under the act, the role of DPAC is really to advise the minister in relation to proposals and to see whether those proposals—in this case the ministerial development plan amendment—comply with the overall planning strategy. I expect that the committee will, as it normally does, make a number of constructive comments in relation to some of the details that are in the development plan amendment. What I do not expect the development policy advisory committee to do is rerun the debate on the 30-year plan itself; that is not its job.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can appreciate that. I suppose this is again an attempt to put on the record information relating to this plan. Can you please number the public submissions that have been received—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There have been 541 written submissions received and 130 interested parties who have wished to make verbal submissions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Do you also have breakdown figures on whether they support or oppose it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, we do not do that. Again, the role of this whole process is really to consider the development plan amendments. It is quite clear from the correspondence that many people want to rerun the actual 30-year plan debate about a whole lot of issues regarding where growth would be. Remember, the role of DPAC at those meetings is to consider the actual development plan amendment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate that a lot of discussions have taken place—informal and formal, at varying levels—but can you provide confirmation to the committee regarding any formal discussions you have had with the Mount Barker consortia in the lead-up to the initiation of the DPA?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have responded to most of these things in parliament a long time ago now. I think the original proposal to consider growth at Mount Barker came prior to the 30-year plan even being announced. I remember having debates with the previous mayor—I think it was Tony Wales—before the 2006 election about what was happening then in relation to growth and various issues involving a consortium. I have been having discussions about Mount Barker growth for more than four years, probably for five or six years at least. How far back do you go, really?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know that when I met with mayor Ferguson, probably three months ago, she confirmed that over the five years of the last census period Mount Barker's population had grown by 16 per cent, so the pressure is enormous to ensure that appropriate development takes place. I recognise that infrastructure roll-out will be a key issue associated with any expansion that occurs in Mount Barker, and it is likely that the funds to pay for that infrastructure will come from a variety of sources. As part of the work that the government has done, in whatever plan or review it has undertaken, is there any estimate of the total roll-out cost of the infrastructure necessary to support the anticipated growth within the DPA area?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is, and quite detailed work has been done, but I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to announce it at this stage. As I said, Mr Hanlon has been involved in those negotiations. They are looking at getting ballpark figures, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate to discuss them at this stage. Perhaps Mr Hanlon can at least indicate how long the discussions have been going on and what sort of areas are being looked at; but I do not think it would be appropriate to give actual dollar figures at this stage, other than to say that we have had lengthy discussions.

Mr HANLON: Perhaps I could just say that for a number of months now we have been in negotiations with both the council and landowners, because it is not just the consortium here. There are a number of landowners who are involved in this, and there is a lot of emphasis on one particular consortium, but there is a significant larger group involved in that who are involved in this process. A number of utilities are obviously involved in the process.

The reason why it is difficult to give any form of figure at this point in time is that, in relation to a number of those utilities, we facilitate those early discussions, but the detailed business case for sewer, water and electricity are actually conducted with those utilities directly.

Then there is a certain road infrastructure network that obviously is required also to facilitate any future rezoning of that land if that is what the minister decides. Those negotiations are going on right at the moment. The figure is substantial, but if I gave any figure today it would not necessarily be an accurate figure because I do not actually know the final position of what will occur in those negotiations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, my understanding is that you previously said that upon reaching trigger points there will be various rollouts of infrastructure. Are you able to provide the committee with any details of what the trigger points would be? It is a number of blocks created, is it the number of people who live there or the age profile of those people?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will ask Mr Hanlon to provide detail about that.

Mr HANLON: It does vary for each aspect of the negotiations that are being undertaken. For instance in relation to sewer, we work off a median density figure, that dwelling yield that we would expect for that particular region, so that they can determine their business case in relation to that. That is an agreed figure that we use between the council, the landowners and the utilities, so that determines sewer connections and water connections and all those particular utilities. We work off the same figure for ETSA. For road network, we use a much more detailed analysis. We have actually used a PB report—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry—Parsons Brinckerhoff?

Mr HANLON: Yes—that the council had undertaken, and we use traffic movements obviously for that, again off a median dwelling figure and then a certain number of people per dwelling, which is a 2.6 figure that we use, and then we use the number of traffic movements that we could expect at each intersection and each part of the development, whether that be arterial roads, local roads or freeway movement, to determine the sort of road infrastructure required. As you can imagine, they are fairly detailed discussions and detailed negotiations over those movements.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested that the 2.6 figure is used, and I can understand that because it would be seen as a growth area with younger families, whereas the average occupancy rate is about 1.85 or thereabouts.

Mr HANLON: No, I think I am right in this—the average we work on is 2.6, and we are using for this particular area 2.63. We use 2.6 but, because of the growth and family growth that we expect in this area, we use a figure of 2.63, so it is not that much different but there is some difference. We use a similar approach right across Greater Adelaide.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not just Mount Barker; it is other places like Gawler East and so on.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, this question might be a little bit early, given that there are a lot of things to confirm first but, given that the recent federal election created an opportunity for funds to suddenly flow through to regional Australia, have there been any discussions with some of your federal colleagues about infrastructure funding support?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are obviously very interested in regional areas, and I mentioned earlier that we are actually in the process of doing five plans at the moment. They are at various stages of completion. There has not yet been a ministerial meeting with the new government. I think it took 17 days after the election for the government to settle in, but I hope we will have ministerial meetings very shortly, before the end of the year. I have just been informed that minister Conlon has had a meeting in relation to the freeway. I assume we are talking about Mount Barker, but I guess you are asking more generally, are you?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It was specific to Mount Barker but also generally, yes, no doubt about that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to that, we have had that, and I think Ian has had some meetings.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: I met with Infrastructure Australia when the board meeting was here last week, and the point they raised through Michael Deegan was that South Australia was continuing to punch above its weight because of the link between land use planning and the infrastructure plan. So there was a clear link between the use—and that was the point I made, too, about the work we are doing with regional South Australia and, in addition, the discussions we are having about structure planning with regional cities. I met with Port Lincoln city council and the Lower Eyre Peninsula council just recently to have the same discussion about structure planning in regional South Australia.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Mr Hanlon also has some more.

Mr HANLON: We have had a number of discussions, as the CEO has pointed out, with Infrastructure Australia. They are here again this week with COAG representatives to have further discussions with us about our growth program within the state. We are certainly identifying everything that has been released in the HELS Program and all of our land releases and all of our urban growth area (both infill and broadacre development) to identify especially public transport, rail and other road infrastructure requirements to manage that growth.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As you say, with the regional areas obviously it is important that we consider those as well. As I said, we are at various stages of advancement. A lot of publicity has been given to the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. We have plans at various stages of completion for the rest of the state as well.

Mr PICCOLO: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Program 1, pages 4.9 to 4.10. I think it is an opportune time to speak. So far we have had questions regarding Mount Barker, etc. I am more concerned about what the government is doing to keep development within the existing urban footprint. Can the minister describe the measures being undertaken by the government to stimulate growth within the existing urban footprint of metropolitan Adelaide?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is an important question because we talked earlier about the Housing and Employment Land Supply program and all of the issues that we have been looking at. A lot of the focus, in the media anyway, has been on the greenfield areas, but you are quite right, we do need to look at the infill as well, and in some ways that is almost more challenging.

A key objective of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is the achievement of a more efficient, sustainable and compact urban form through an increased level of density infill development. That new, more compact urban form will help us accommodate the projected population and economic growth in a sustainable and efficient manner. As I just mentioned, the plan sets a target for 70 per cent of new development to be within the existing urban footprint within 30 years, moving from the current ratio of infill to fringe development of around 50:50.

The government is fully aware that this will require a significant shift in the way Adelaide has grown historically and the magnitude of the shift is evident; for example, from the first report of the Housing and Employment Land Supply Program that we launched today.

Incidentally, in there in the maps, it is quite interesting that every new dwelling that has been built between 2005 and 2009 is in there for greater Adelaide. That is the sort of level of detail. Everyone we know about has hopefully got appropriate approval, but it is an incredible level of detail in that plan.

That plan highlights the significant land supply gap which can only be reached through substantial infill growth. The government fully acknowledges the need for significant changes to the planning system if the full benefits of that 30-year plan are to be realised. Already we have taken steps to implement the plan including the commencement of structure planning for infill along key transport corridors and the establishment of the Government Planning and Coordination Committee which comprises the chief executives of 17 government agencies to resolve the whole of government issues and coordinate implementation of the plan and particularly within these infill areas.

In addition, the Department of Planning and Local Government has commenced working with local councils in the inner suburban areas surrounding the Parklands—so we are talking of perhaps a radius of 2.5 kilometres from the centre of the city—to identify candidate areas for rezoning to stimulate infill growth. I expect to see this work progress over the course of the next year.

The 30-year plan talks about focusing growth around existing transport corridors and nodes. This will require new and innovative approaches to planning policy and my department has already commenced this work with a new approach to zoning to be road-tested in selected inner suburban councils.

I will shortly be issuing a gazette notice requiring all councils to review their development programs to bring them into line with the 30-year plan. This will include providing substantial opportunities in zoning policies for increased density in infill areas along these key transport corridors. These new zoning policies, designed to support high-density infill growth, will assist local councils in undertaking this work.

The Department of Planning and Local Government is also developing a suite of additional measures building on the policies of the plan and the recommendations of the 2008 planning and development review to support implementation of the plan including possible changes to legislation.

Options under consideration include: further streamlining the rezoning process and development assessment procedures, reducing and standardising zones across the metropolitan area while still maintaining the essential character of existing neighbourhoods, and basing zoning on design performance rather than relying on separating different types of land uses.

The government will also be looking into legislative changes to support the development of transit-oriented developments at the sites identified in the 30-year plan. I expect that, in accordance with the recommendations of the planning and development review, the Land Management Corporation and the recently appointed Commissioner for Integrated Design will have a key role to play in relation to these key growth precincts.

The obvious implication here is that if one is going to get greater density, it needs to be well designed. Back in the sixties, we had an attempt to increase density around urban Adelaide. It was not successful because the design was, frankly, pretty horrible and we cannot afford to have that happen again. If we are to get this greater density, good design is an important, in fact, absolutely essential, element to that.

We are talking about a 30-year plan and we cannot expect to see transformation of Adelaide's urban form in a short time span. However, developments at the former Clipsal site at Bowden, Lightsview at Northgate, which you are talking about, and at Cheltenham are all examples of projects on the ground that provide evidence of the government's intention to support infill development.

Of course, these developments and others like them are occurring on available broadacre sites within the existing urban footprint. It is going to be harder to achieve redevelopment of existing developed sites without creative zoning policies and a development facilitation mechanism.

This is exactly what the department is working on at this moment, and I expect we will have these policies in place within the next few years, giving us the best opportunity to realise the 30-year plan's vision. Whereas those big sites are, sort of, the easy ones, the hard part is going to be the regeneration of some of the more degraded sites and the issue of accumulating smaller sites. Of course, we have seen in the past, with Housing Trust land, where large areas have been redeveloped, and that has provided an example. I guess we just have to do more of that and do it better.

Mr PICCOLO: I refer the minister to the same budget line. In your opening comments, minister, you said that one of the major objectives of the 30-year plan is to protect character areas and important areas for the state. Obviously, one of those areas is the Willunga Basin. Can you provide details about what actions the government has taken to protect the character of the Willunga Basin, as outlined in the 30-year plan?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is an important question because it is something that is dear to the heart of the government and most certainly dear to the heart of the member for Mawson, who is always ringing up and wanting action. So, I am sure he will be pleased to hear the answer to this question.

Protection of the character and production capacity of the Willunga Basin is a key policy concern of the government. That is why, during consultation on the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, the government ensured that the basin's importance as a tourism drawcard and a major wine-producing area was acknowledged as requiring protection. Specifically, the 30-year plan calls for the Willunga Basin to be reserved for agriculture, viticulture, tourism, tourist accommodation and biodiversity-related purposes, all with high levels of visual amenity.

Regrettably, much of the recent discussion about the Willunga Basin centres around the proposed Seaford Heights development, and this is despite the fact that the Seaford Heights area has been zoned for residential development for two decades. Because of this, the zoning policies are out of date and no longer reflect best practice, which is why the state government and Onkaparinga council agreed that an amendment to the development plan should be progressed. It is unfortunate that, so close to the council elections, the council has decided to renege on this agreement.

I have instructed the Department of Planning and Local Government to prepare the documentation required for the amendment to the development plan to be taken over by me as minister. Preparation of the development plan amendment will now be carried out within the state government, removing this issue from the cauldron of local politics.

I have also asked the department to progress discussions with the local council on addressing management of primary production land in the Willunga Basin. In the short term, I expect the department to convene a working group of relevant stakeholders to undertake detailed conversation about the issues confronting the basin, with recommendations to be made to me in due course. I understand that the department has already initiated a review of interface issues between primary production land and the other key land uses that will feed into this process.

I expect that the working group will address a range of matters, including reviewing the adequacy of existing planning policy to ensure consistency with the 30-year plan (remember, as I have just said, that provided significant protection for the basin) and assessing existing land division policies in rural-zoned land to ensure that land parcels are of sufficient size and dimension to limit the possibility of further division leading to urban encroachment and fragmentation of rural lands. I think that is a very important measure if we are to protect the Willunga Basin.

Also, we expect the working group to review the existing planning policy in relation to Bowering Hill, which is within the urban growth boundary—it is west of Main South Road. The government, following consultation in relation to the 30-year plan, understands the unique nature of that land at Bowering Hill and its potential to be used for tourism-related purposes. So, that will be part of the task of the working group. Also, they will need to ensure that planning controls allow for primary production and tourism to be integrated within the Willunga Basin.

I have asked the member for Mawson, Mr Leon Bignell, to participate in these discussions, along with an elected representative from the City of Onkaparinga, and this will ensure that the department has local input from elected representatives at both levels of government. This work will guide appropriate ongoing management of primary production land, ensuring preservation of the Willunga Basin's character and production capacity.

I expect that the lessons we learn from this exercise will apply to other parts of the state, including the Barossa Valley—although, of course, some of the protections we talked about here in relation to the minimum size of land parcels and so on have been addressed in the past, so the need at Willunga is probably more urgent. We are keen to get that under way and that will be the first step, but there are obviously issues for the Barossa Valley which, as part of the 30-year plan, the government has also committed to preserving given its unique tourism and heritage appeal and, also, its broad economic importance as a wine producing area.

So, key to this work is addressing interface issues between land uses, particularly between rural land use and urban land use and the potential for Adelaide's southern suburbs to encroach on the Willunga Basin. I also mention that, indeed, these are issues which also could be looked at in relation to Mount Barker outside the area.

There has been a big debate going on in relation to the need to preserve rural land, and so on. Can I say, from my observations in the years as a planning minister, that the biggest consumer of agricultural land is often subdivision for rural living. It is not just land being divided for housing, because that tends to be reasonably dense; but, when you have these allotments that could be anything from 1,000 or 2,000 square metres up into the hectares, an enormous amount of productive land can effectively be taken out of circulation for very little housing output.

I think if one looks around the fringes of many towns in the Adelaide Hills, for example, a lot of good rural producing land is consumed for very little housing efficiency. I think that is one of the areas that we need to address. Whether it is the Willunga Basin, the Barossa (where there are some controls) or the areas outside the urban growth area of Mount Barker, in all those areas one of the issues that we have to look at, and cannot avoid looking at, is better planning to protect rural land against subdivision for the smaller allotments.

At the weekend I was driving through the Adelaide Hills and it is amazing how many rural holdings are for sale but they are all divided into a number of holdings. Often, as they are sold, they can be broken into smaller and smaller parcels, none of which can be viable for an agricultural purpose. So it is a challenge that the government is aware of in relation to Willunga. We are addressing that, with that structure that I mentioned, with the member for Mawson. But they are issues that really do need planning elsewhere.

While I am commenting on that, I notice that the Adelaide Hills Council is doing its own development plan in relation to protecting agricultural land and, of course, they have specific issues up there, so I compliment them for doing that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.7, relating to the 30-year plan. Can the minister confirm how much was spent on the draft and the final publication of the 30-year plan? What was the cost?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously, there were a number of inputs into the 30-year plan and a number of quite extensive consultancies provided the data for that particular plan. I assume the member is just asking for the actual production costs?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, in its formulation and preparation of a draft, and then the final publication.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously, there was a major contract. One of them would have been with KPMG and Professor Jennifer Westacott, who provided very significant input into the process. There was also input through the geographic study that was provided. Most of that would have been in the previous budget. There was a study—the geographic indicators—was another work that was done to provide much of the input. We do have it here. KPMG was the major consultancy, at $850,000. That was the actual expenditure in 2008-09 and 2009-10. In 2009-10 the final payment of that was $400,000. Connor Holmes did the geographic modelling, at $250,000 in 2008-09 and $70,000 in 2009-10.

Ilmarinen—I am not sure what that was related to. That may have been for another purpose. It is probably not associated with the plan; it was the other contractor. There is some work coming out of it. In the recent year we have had some work done by Hassell. Fairly soon we hope to release the first of our structure plans for the north-west corridor. It is one of the documents that we have been working on. We hope to be releasing that very soon. Hassell has been involved in that work. It has also done some work with the Clipsal site. There has been a significant input into that. The Hassell contract was $95,000, but that was not specifically for the 30-year plan; it has come out of it.

The actual expenditure on advertising and printing in the 2009-10 year was advertising, $80,000 and printing, $60,000 in total. Of course, we have to do a significant amount of advertising for public statutory required notification as well. That budget, I assume, takes that into account. That is all the advertising in relation to the plan; that is specifically for that. Mr Nightingale points out that there is a statutory requirement for part of that because in February the 30-year plan became part of the planning strategy for the state. They are the total figures.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister; I appreciate that. I am sort of a bit shamelessly plagiarising a question the Hon. Mr Ridgway posed on 14 September when he asked you about the maps that are within the 30-year plan showing the specific corridors and major corridors which could be the focus for high density development within those respective 400 and 800 metre figures you were talking about earlier.

Minister, I am advised that you were quoted as saying that what might happen within that 800 metres will depend upon a lot of extra work to be done. Given that it is now some four weeks since then, are you able to present the document which outlines the exact areas to be subject to this development, and when will that document be made available for public consultation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, we keep drilling down. You have the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, which has significant detail and policies that guide the growth of Adelaide for 30 years. You then have this new Housing and Employment Land Supply Program report, which gets into a great deal of detail for all the various parts of Adelaide—where every house has been built in the last five years and upwards and where we know land will be made available, and so on.

But then the other level of planning that we get down to is the structure and precinct planning. As I said, we hope to release fairly soon the first of those, which is for the north-west corridor. That is just being finalised. Obviously, if I remember, the Hon. Mr Ridgway's question talked generally about all other corridors. Obviously, we will have to do that; that is, we will have to continue to roll out this for other corridors, as well. The work we are doing now, following on from the release today of the Housing and Employment Land Supply Program, first of all, is this inner ring of 2½ kilometres.

Obviously the parkland frontages are absolutely crucial areas and what happens there, and they are all referred to. What we would like to see happen and so on is all outlined in the 30-year plan, but we need to get down to the detail of that in terms of getting our zoning policies in place.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, that is the essence of my question. You refer to a soon to be released northwest study.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: How many studies are there and have you set a time frame for when all those studies will be released?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The 30-year plan identifies eight priority areas as having potential to accommodate the majority of the future growth of Adelaide. Obviously, you work where you get the best return. Five of these priority areas have been designated as state significant areas. The eight priority areas include the five strategic fixed-line transit corridors: the Noarlunga rail line, the Outer Harbor rail line, the Gawler rail line, the Glenelg tram line and the O-Bahn busway. They are the five strategic fixed-line transit corridors.

There is then the northern economic corridor stretching from Greater Edinburgh Parks to Gillman along the route of the Port River Expressway, Port Wakefield Road and the Northern Expressway, which has just been completed recently. There is also the new township at Roseworthy Gawler and, in the future, the Concordia area. There is also the new township at Buckland Park. They are really the eight priority areas and we expect to do them over a two-year time frame.

Ms SANDERSON: Given in the Adelaide electorate Churchill Road, Prospect Road and Main North Road have already been identified as major transit corridors and 400 metres and 800 metres from each of these covers most of Prospect, can the minister give any assurance that the high-rise accommodation will be restricted to the actual corridors only, being one block either side, and will not affect or change the character and heritage nature of this suburb?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Basically, yes. What we have done with Unley is that we started working there a couple of years ago with the Unley council. The council, with the support of the government, has identified their character areas. I think 45 per cent (or thereabouts) of that Unley area has been identified and much of that goes very close to the major corridors. What then follows the structure planning when you look at these major corridors is the precinct planning which identifies the strategic locations.

Of all the places around the world that the group visited with the Minister for Transport and me last year, one of the most impressive places that I saw where you see high density on main roads and then stepping back into the suburbs was at Arlington in Washington in the United States. You could be back as close as probably 50 metres, maybe 100 metres, from the main road and you are into a leafy suburb, yet that can just transition into some high level development along the major areas. It has done very well and, as I said, you scarcely notice the transition. That is obviously what we would expect will happen in corridors.

Clearly, some of these corridors will have quite large areas that might be former industrial areas. For example, if one looks along Port Road, clearly there are a whole lot of disused factories and sites that might become available. The Clipsal site itself is on a transport corridor. There you have 16 hectares. It is a very large area, so that might move well away from the transit corridor. Certainly, along Prospect Road, one would expect that high density would be pretty much constrained to the main corridor.

What we are hoping to do in those areas is to get mixed use, like in Paris and other places in Europe, where they have commerce/commercial on the ground floor and people living above it. I think that is going to be a very acceptable form of living for the future along our major corridors. One of the first areas we are doing, as the honourable member said, is Churchill Road, and we are now looking at Islington.

There are parts of Islington—parts of Churchill Road, particularly on the western side—where there are large blocks. We have already had applications for redevelopment for some of them, and I am not sure whether or not they have been approved. Other areas may be useful but, in any case, not far from the west of Churchill Road, you have the rail line, which is a corridor, so it is a somewhat special case.

What we are going to do is use the precinct planning to identify those strategic locations. Certainly, the overall thrust of the 30-year plan is to try to leave 80 per cent of the existing area of Greater Adelaide untouched and get the future growth in a higher density development along corridors. Some areas are quite degraded and may be more suited for redevelopment than others, and that is really the work that needs to take place in the precinct plan. Perhaps I could ask Mr Hanlon, who has been more intimately involved in this work than me, if he can add to the answer.

Mr HANLON: Certainly. We are currently working with all the councils within inner metro, including the Prospect council for Churchill Road, Prospect Road and Main North Road. They are very much involved with us in a process of looking at all the opportunities along those particular main roads into the city for redevelopment and rezoning. At the same time, they are working with us in regard to policy development (which will allow for density and height increase) and identifying sites with minimal impact on current residential areas, because we want to select sites which are not just marketable but also appropriate development.

It does not mean that we want necessarily to do high-rise development along the entire stretch of those roads. We want to identify the sites where it would be suitable and then how far we can go in—whether it is one block or two blocks—depends on their interface with current residential areas. So, we are currently working through that entire process. As the minister has said, that will be part of a structure plan process, a precinct planning process and policy that supports that, all of which has to go through a consultative process in any case.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Perhaps just to point out an example at Prospect, obviously, Churchill Road has more potential for upgrade than parts of Prospect Road. There are some grand houses along Prospect Road that are probably heritage listed, and so on, so there may not necessarily be that much change along large parts of that road. It would depend on the sort of precinct plan and the plans that the council may have for it, whereas with Churchill Road there might be more significant upgrading because of the opportunities and also the nature of the sites there, where there are, it would be fair to say, some fairly degraded parts.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, my question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.10, and specifically wind farm planning. You would be aware that, throughout the Mid North and southern Flinders regions—most of which falls into the electorate of Stuart—there is enormous and growing dissatisfaction in regard to wind farm development. My question really relates to your intentions with regard to future planning.

Just like industrial and residential developments, decades ago they were approved, or otherwise, as they were proposed and then we moved on to actually planning corridors for development. Do you have any similar intention in regard to wind farm developments? Right now, a lot of work and effort goes into dealing with them as they are put up by the various proponents, but the community is looking for much longer-term planning about where they may or may not go into the future. Can you tell me whether you have any intention of working along those lines?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The history of wind farm planning is interesting. I think the very first wind farm, which might have been the one down at Sellicks Hill, was declared a major project in November 2003, so that gives the time frame for this. That still has not been built; in fact, the approval expires very soon, I understand. At some point after that first project in 2003, rather than doing them as major projects (which was obviously appropriate for the first one), the ministerial development plan amendment in 2003 amended all development plans across the state and inserted objectives and principles supporting wind farms and set out a number of general principles that can be used to assess the suitability of the location and the design of a wind farm.

That development plan amendment back in 2003 was supported by the publication of a planning bulletin and guide to applicants, I think, in 2002. This material published on the departmental website assists applicants, councils and communities in understanding the issues that are raised by a wind farm proposal. The development regulations exempt from planning consent any wind tower below 10 metres in height, free standing, or four metres if erected on a building. Commercial wind farms generally cannot use the exemption as tower heights are commonly around 100 metres.

I think the honourable member is right in that, following that, it appeared as though that ministerial development plan amendment was working well. I understand, more recently, there have been issues raised in relation to these. In particular, we have had representation from Eyre Peninsula, as well as probably the honourable member's constituents in the Mid North, so we are currently reviewing that policy with RenewablesSA. We are talking about a policy that is only seven years old and that was probably our first wind farm. It appeared to work for a while, but there have been a large number of these wind farms.

I am told the Sellicks Hill wind farm was the third in the state. The first was at Cape Jervis and the second was near Elliston, which was not built. So, the Cape Jervis one has been built and the other was not. I was not the minister at the time, but I know they certainly had to be looked at as individual projects. Then we tried to do this through a development plan and leave it to local government to do. However, in view of those representations, we are now looking at the policy in conjunction with RenewablesSA.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In conjunction with who?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: RenewablesSA, which is the government body that is responsible for renewable energy.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, as I understand it then, there are guidelines for development which really are geared towards developers, but there is no statewide zoning or anything like that in place for where developments may or may not be proposed?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think this development plan amendment actually just put planning policies in; it did not look at locations. Obviously the locations sort of pick themselves. It is fair to say that the policy was devised to encourage wind power, there is no doubt about that, but I guess the volume now has reached the point where there is some reaction to that, and I guess that is why we do need to look at the policy. The member is right: it obviously was to encourage them, and I think that was a good thing. We do have a significant portion of wind power and there are still some areas where they are warmly supported, but I think in the Mid North there has been a reaction to that, so obviously it is appropriate we look at the policy that was encouraging them. We will do that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That would be terrific, thank you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 6, page 46, Budget Measures, which identify at the top of that page that it is intended to create a saving of $3 million over the next three years by making the Development Assessment Commission responsible for identified developments in state significant areas, key transport corridors and priority growth areas. This is to ensure that the future planning is consistently structured with the 30-year plan.

Minister, I can only assume that this actually means that a transfer of planning responsibility will occur from local government to the Development Assessment Commission. Can you explain to me how these savings of $3 million are going to be achieved?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are really talking about an additional $3 million in revenue over three years by making DAC the responsible authority for identified developments in state significant areas because it will have to do the work. I think we have already in the earlier questions today effectively put the case about why we need to have DAC involved—and the government generally involved—because there are questions of assembling this land and making sure that we plan for whole areas, not just isolated developments. There is a case for DAC doing it, but as a consequence of that we expect there will be this additional revenue, which of course translates as a saving measure, if you like, because it is revenue that we do not now receive.

To give you some more information, DAC will be the responsible authority for identified developments in state significant areas. I think in the earlier answer I gave we mentioned a couple of those: the Gawler line, for example; I think Buckland Park was one; and some of those larger developments. In the case of Buckland Park, because it is a major project I guess DAC would effectively be the authority anyway.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not to consider any new applications within Buckland Park, though. Surely once—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Sorry, I will take that back. We did have earlier a list of the state significant areas anyway. I will ask Mr Hanlon to answer the question, because he has been involved, but essentially we are talking about additional revenue for DAC taking that role in those state significant areas and the key transport corridors.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am prepared to accept that answer. Mr Hanlon does not need to give me any more detail than that. My subsequent question obviously has to be, though, given that this is taking something away from local government, has indeed local government made any representations to you, and to what level was it consulted prior to the implementation of this policy?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We have been working with local government throughout the whole 30-year plan, and I think it is fair to say there is an acceptance that certain functions will need to be done at a state level. Perhaps I could ask Mr Hanlon, who has actually been conducting most of these negotiations with local government. He can probably give a clearer opinion than I can about local government's reaction, as he has actually been dealing with it in most cases.

Mr HANLON: This was identified in the 30-year plan as part of the government's arrangements, that in state significant areas the government would identify this process, and the whole theory behind this and the process behind this would be: we would involve councils in structure planning processes and we would involve councils in precinct planning processes. The intention is that, at that point in time, the significant growth areas that are required to meet the targets within the plan need to be identified. Those precincts need to be identified so along, say, a north-west corridor (where we have done the structure planning but we have not released it at this point in time), we would be working with councils to identify the 16 priority areas that we have identified in that area.

It could be areas like West Lakes, Woodville or the Clipsal site—those sort of areas. We would work with the councils and identify all the policy areas required for that. Once we have completed the precinct plan we would then identify the planning authority for that area as the Development Assessment Commission. Therefore, you are right; the revenue from those applications within there would then come into the state. As you know, there is a substantial cost in structure planning and precinct planning policy development for those areas.

It is reasonable that those dollars are covering the costs which are not being passed on to councils to undertake those sort of activities. They are being done in conjunction with the state but we are actually paying for those particular processes and managing that whole land assembly process on behalf of councils. So, as much as you say it is revenue coming away from councils, it is also work that they are not undertaking.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, and consequently I can also appreciate there are additional work components being put upon DAC, too, so that DAC will incur additional costs.

Mr HANLON: That's correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 6, page 46, government planning strategy reforms. The government proposes to save $4.7 million over four years by making changes to the following areas: DPAs, policy development, development assessment and performance monitoring of the planning system. I know that we have talked in many different terms, but are there specific improvements you have in mind that are to be made?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That saving of $4.7 million over four years by instituting reforms to implement the government's planning strategy more efficiently and effectively include but are not limited to a range of system and process improvements in the following areas: development plan amendments, focused policy development, development assessment, performance monitoring of the planning system and geographic information system mapping.

The government is in a position to take advantage of efficiencies and the planning strategy as a result of the extensive independent review of the South Australian planning system. Those reforms support the implementation of the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The department has already initiated independent business reviews covering development plan amendments, a development assessment and policy development to identify process improvements, and the key focus will be working with local government to ensure that development plan amendments are progressed on a priority basis depending on their focus on achieving the outcomes of the planning strategy.

We do have a lot of development plan amendment statements of intent that come in—often, presumably, being a favourite hobbyhorse of someone on the council but not necessarily of great strategic importance—so we want to focus activity on a priority basis. We want to negotiate land use policy outcomes with other government agencies and councils up-front to free up resources from having to negotiate these issues on a case-by-case basis every time a development plan amendment or development assessment is considered by the department.

We want to explore system improvement opportunities to facilitate more streamlined approaches to the development plan amendment process; work with local government to improve their processes for capturing geographic information system (GIS) mapping data for development plan amendments rather than doing all the GIS mapping on the council's behalf; speeding up the delivery on key planning reforms such as processing structure planning of the key transport corridors; completing the review and implementation of the regional planning strategies; developing an effective model to provide performance information on the planning system in South Australia; and identifying and exiting from non-core functions that are not key drivers of the planning reforms in areas such as climate change, sustainability and water-sensitive urban design that would be more efficiently delivered by the appropriate lead agencies. So, that is a pretty comprehensive summary of all those areas.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Having worked in local government, I understand to some level that planning pressures are in place. I am somewhat concerned that as part of your answer you talked about considering development plan amendments and statements of intent on a priority basis. Doesn't every matter that comes to you, where there is an expectation of it being treated within a reasonable time frame (much less than the period of up to three or four years I am commonly told about), all represent an effort that has gone into an economic development opportunity within that area by lodging that information with you?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I take your point, and part of the priority is making sure that these plans are attuned with the planning strategy, as that is exactly what we want to promote. One of the reasons we are starting to do this priority, and why I am very keen on doing it, is particularly that a lot of the commonwealth stimulus money is winding down and we need to encourage private sector investment. It is up-front centre that we do that, and it is part of the reason why we are looking at some of these measures.

We are mindful of the fact—and I will ask the department to comment in a second—that many of the development plans we have need a lot of work; they are very labour intensive for the department for arguably little benefit. Perhaps Mr Nightingale can comment. I know that we have had these discussions in the department as a lot of work is done on development plans that arguably have very little strategic importance, so we want to make absolutely sure that we do not lose economic opportunities.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: For example, I have contacted all CEs of the councils recently to look at the DPAs that have been in the system for three years or longer. Many of those councils are coming back now saying that they just do not want to do them, and so you can get them out of the system and deal with something else. We are also advising the minister on standardising the policy library better so that we do not have many DPAs coming through, as there is a lot of work reviewing every one by way of policies to update them.

On your point earlier about the statement of intent, in a sense it is a contract between the minister and the council, but making it more strategic and more like a contract means that we can deliver, as the department would be responsible to deliver, on those key milestones. At the moment those milestones and dates in the statement of intent just default and do not mean as much as they should. If we can improve the quality of the DPAs coming through the department and standardise the policy library so that we are not looking at reviewing every single policy for every DPA, I emphasise the importance of aligning the councils' DPAs with the planning strategies.

Ms THOMPSON: My question is about improvements to the coast. Can the minister provide advice on how the planning and development fund is helping improve the beaches along the coast of metropolitan Adelaide, especially in the important electorate of Bright and the adjoining electorate of Reynell?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I thank the honourable member for her extremely important question and her interest in the Coast Park project. The government has made significant improvements to the Adelaide metropolitan coastline through the implementation of Coast Park. The Coast Park concept plan establishes a vision and direction for the enhancement of public use of Adelaide's metropolitan coastline. The Coast Park plan also establishes directions to be undertaken for the environmental enhancement of this area. The concept plan sets overall priorities and provides a comprehensive staging strategy for land acquisition and redevelopment.

South Australians of all ages have a great affection for our beaches along the metropolitan coastline. Many generations have regularly visited Adelaide's beaches, undertaking a range of activities such as swimming, sailing, surfing, fishing, beach cricket or just walking along the beach.

The Coast Park is, stage by stage, creating a continuous linear park along the metropolitan foreshore, from Sellicks Beach to North Haven. Coast Park is part of the Metropolitan Open Space System (MOSS), and is flagged as one of the key open space policies in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The ongoing and major project is on track for completion by 2020, with more than half the park completed to date.

I was asked about the electorate of Bright, and I am pleased to inform the Chair that the Somerton Park section of Coast Park is now complete and was officially opened in February 2010, completing the link between Glenelg and the Minda campus at Brighton North. It is great to actually see these projects and people actually using them.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, it really has totally transformed the activities along that part of the coast, even though it is a coast that is just an essentially very limited area. I think they have done a great job.

The next sections of Coast Park, extending south from North Brighton to Kingston Park are currently in the design phase. The City of Holdfast Bay anticipates that the construction of this major project will need to be completed over several stages and will take about six years. To assist the City of Holdfast Bay to begin work on this part of the Coast Park project, I recently approved $1 million of funding for stage 1 of construction from North Brighton to Seacliff.

Funding from the Open Space Funding Program will extend the existing section of the shared pedestrian and cycle pathway. The funding will also be used to provide landscaping, shelters, seating and decking structures. The goals of the project are to:

maintain and enhance open space linkages;

ensure free, safe and convenient access along the foreshore for all ages and abilities;

provide appropriately for traffic and parking;

maintain access for all people wishing to use the coast;

recognise, value, protect and, where possible, enhance culturally significant areas, sandy beaches, coastal landscapes, dune systems, coastal reserves and buffers; and

provide a coastal experience for pedestrians and cyclists to educate the community on the special value of the coast.

In addition to this recent grant of $1 million, funding from the Open Space program has previously been provided for eight Coast Park projects within the City of Holdfast Bay, totalling $2,250,000 since July 2002. Since July 2002, the state government has provided $15.5 million towards the development of Coast Park through the Planning and Development Fund.

As you would expect with a project of this importance, its development and progress has required the input of several state government agencies. The implementation of Coast Park is undertaken in partnership between the Department of Planning and Local Government, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the Department for Environment and Natural Resources and the relevant councils.

This project typifies the government's commitment to protecting and improving Adelaide's metropolitan coastline to ensure its environmental sustainability and continued use as a focal point for community activity. So, we very much look forward to that project rolling out in the near future and the future extensions of the Coast Park.

The CHAIR: Thank you for it, because it is actually a very enjoyable place to walk—it is gorgeous. I encourage you all to come to the electorate of Bright—unless you want my seat, in which case you can stay away.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, the member for Morphett lives there. He appreciates it, doesn't he?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I just refer to an answer provided by Mr Nightingale as part of my previous question to you. I am rather intrigued by his comment that he contacted local government CEOs and was told by them that they did not wish to proceed with a lot of the DPAs currently before your department. I suppose my observation would be that it seems to be a trend that has been in place for several years now that those DPAs are actually developer funded and are not necessarily part of the planning review undertaken by the councils themselves. So, can you just clarify how that relates to this situation?

Mr NIGHTINGALE: I sent a letter to all councils indicating the department's review of all DPAs in the system, and that looked at a number of time frames. So, we were looking at how long they had been in the system. The request of those CEs, or their departments, their councils, was to look at the development plans that had been in the system for a considerable period of time, and one category was three years or longer. A number of those councils have now come back to us and indicated that those development plan amendments are no longer necessary.

We have had, I think, between six and eight of the 30-odd that were outstanding that the councils have indicated that they do not wish to proceed with. They were initiated by councils. Their view was that strategically they were not important to the council any longer, and we encouraged them, if did not want to proceed, to tell us that they would pull them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In good management processes, they should have done that as a matter of course, anyway.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: Yes, correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.9, Summary income statement, specifically regarding Employee Benefits and Costs. Given that everything we have talked about today relates to some enormous challenges before the state to make sure that we get it right and pursue opportunities, I am somewhat surprised—and this might sound a bit strange from a person who is a former shadow treasurer and had to look at savings opportunities on occasion—to note that the 2009-10 budget figure for employee benefits and costs was far less than the estimated result; a lot more money was spent.

I can understand that that would have been because of the challenges and the ramp-up and additional efforts that had to go into it but, given that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, I note that the budget has actually come down by 10 per cent this year. Are you able to provide details on the number of staff within the Department of Planning and Local Government who face being the target of voluntary separation packages or efficiency requirements within the Treasurer's instructions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will make the general comment first that in the overall scheme of things in government the importance of planning has been recognised. Yes, there are some cuts to the department, although you have heard that one of those savings measures was extra revenue from work that DAC was doing. Whereas DPLG has not escaped, its cuts have been a lot less than some of the other agencies, so I think that recognises the government's priority for the importance of planning and that we continue the momentum from the 30-year plan reforms. In relation to the FTEs, I will ask Mr Nightingale to provide that information.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: To pick up the first part of your question, we do have to find an FTE reduction of 18 FTEs over four years.

Mr GRIFFITHS: What is your current level of staffing, Mr Nightingale?

Mr NIGHTINGALE: The budget for this year is 191.5 FTEs. As to your question about TVSPs, we have not considered that as yet. I have initiated a full skills profiling of the department so that we can look at what our skill requirement is against what our skill base is at the moment, and that is about to be conducted. We would probably be looking at the end of November before that work was finished, and we have not made any decisions about TVSPs at this point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As a supplementary to that, I understand the skills audit that is being undertaken, but the reduction of staff by nearly 10 per cent from your current full-time equivalent really is going to place a lot of pressure upon you to still deliver, and that is what the development industry, communities, local government, everybody, wants to see: delivery take place. It is quite early in the process, I can appreciate that, but have you done any scoping work on what lesser physical bodies within the Department of Planning and Local Government are going to make to the capacity to carry out the work that is demanded of you?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: To some extent we have answered that in earlier questions, or partly answered it, even the last question about development plan amendments and so on. What we need to do is to use our time more effectively. There has been a lot of time put into the planning area, with some development plan amendment proposals, statement of intent, which are of lower quality than perhaps they ought to be. So, obviously, we have to use our time better and more strategically as well, and that is just one way.

To some extent we have anticipated that cuts were coming. The major planning review and the 30-year plan and all of that sort of work has been done. We are now moving to a different phase in the department where we need to consolidate all that work. As Mr Nightingale says, we have done three reviews of the divisions to look at the core business to make sure that we focus on that. Compared to a number of agencies, while the Department of Planning and Local Government certainly has not been spared, the measures that have been taken will have a relatively small impact on the department. Again, that reflects the government's recognition that its role is important. We are hoping to improve the efficiency—and that is what we expect these reviews to do, to enable us to better match—and that we will have a reform agenda, if you like, to ensure that we can continue to deliver.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I certainly do not envy you in trying to marry up the expectation that exists out there against the resources that are available to you in the job ahead. No doubt many people who are smiling at me now will have a bit of a furrowed brow in future years trying to make everything happen. Can I just seek clarification on one point: how many of the staff within the DPLG will be dedicated to the implementation of the 30-year plan, or in estimates does everybody have some sort of involvement in it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will ask Mr Nightingale to answer that question.

Mr NIGHTINGALE: Nearly all parts of the department will be working either with local government or directly ourselves on many parts of the planning strategy. For example, we have people from the office of local government who are conducting the regional implementation forums with Regional Development Australia and the NRM boards; we have all of our planning policy people who are focusing on a significant amount of work that is associated with structure planning and the like; and we have another whole group working on reviewing our planning policies. So, it is a significant part of the department's role and, importantly, the relationship and the building capacity with local government in the way of delivering that. As I said, we have already met with a number of councils—Mount Barker today, Port Lincoln the week before last—in assisting them to learn the lessons we have been learning from the structure planning work.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The other comment we should make in all this is that with a better policy planning library and so on, so many of the reforms of the government over the past five years or so are about making the process more consistent, more uniform, across the state, and ensuring that we do get some efficiencies out of it. That, I think, is part of the answer, that if we are to get more for less, so to speak, we really need to be more efficient in what we do, and that is why we need to review our processes and make sure that we are not spending time on things that are less important. That is really a key part of this.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to page 4.25, which relates to the Planning and Development Fund, which you have referred to in previous answers to questions from the member for Reynell. What is the current balance of the fund?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I imagine that we would have to give it at the end of the financial year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am quite happy to accept that figure.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously, money is coming in and going out continually. The approved budget for the Planning and Development Fund for 2010-11 is $12,014,000. There are some current commitments that will need to be met from that. However, as we saw in previous years, in the end the revenue exceeded the approved budget, and we have had Treasury approval to expend that significant extra amount. The predictions for the fund are generally conservative, as I understand it. The money still seems to be coming into the fund quite strongly. It was over $15 million. I think the honourable member asked the balance, and there is a balance in the fund. We will take that part on notice.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare that consideration of the proposed payments be adjourned until tomorrow.

At 18:00 the committee adjourned until Wednesday 13 October 2010 at 10:00.