House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Public Works Committee: Elizabeth Park Neighbourhood Renewal Project PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: ELIZABETH PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL PROJECT Ms CICCARELLO House of Assembly Norwood Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:49): I move: That the 286^th report of the committee, on the Elizabeth Park Neighbourhood Renewal Project, be noted. The Elizabeth Park Neighbourhood Renewal Project comprises an area within Yorktown, Midway and Shillabeer roads and contains 237 allotments and dwellings owned by the South Australian Housing Trust. This represents 44 per cent of the 508 allotments and dwellings within the project area. The area is essentially residential but contains other facilities, including the Elizabeth Park Junior and Primary Schools and a neighbourhood level shopping centre. Immediately to the south is a private primary school and public open space in the form of Olive Grove Reserve containing Adam Creek. The master plan for Elizabeth Park has a four to five-year program. During this time, the Housing Trust will demolish up to 130 dwellings, retain 50 dwellings and upgrade and sell 48 others. The trust has purchased 14 strategically significant sites to create larger redevelopment sites, and plans to subdivide and sell 111 Torrens title allotments. A further 40 Torrens title allotments will be retained for new trust housing. When the program is complete, the Housing Trust will retain at least 22 per cent of total stock, being 130 of 585. The total capital expenditure of the project is $18,345,581, including GST. An amount of $1.680 million is funded out of the Urban Renewal Accelerated Fund to purchase properties included in the project. The total project revenue is $16,672,625 (including GST) from the sale of land and dwellings. The cash generated from the sale of Housing Trust owned land will fund the construction of 80 high needs replacement housing within the project area. It is intended to utilise funds within the Elizabeth Development Account for most of the public area improvements. This account was established in 1996 for payment by the City of Playford of $1.5 million over 10 years to land owned by the Housing Trust at the Elizabeth Centre. The funds are to go towards various infrastructure and capital works to be agreed with the trust to improve the amenity of the area in which the Housing Trust dwellings are located. The agreement specifies that the works to be paid for from moneys from the account shall be over and above the works that would normally be performed by the council in a particular area. The indicative budget of at least $800,000 will provide improvements to public spaces, including reserves, signage, lighting, entry points and traffic calming. Funds should also be available for community development initiatives to be identified after community consultation. The City of Playford has agreed in principle that the cost of undertaking improvements, such as the safety and amenity of public areas, streetscape and traffic management, will be funded from the Elizabeth Development Fund. The remaining elements, such as street tree planting and footpath upgrading, together with community projects, are to be funded, where appropriate, from its annual capital programs in coordination with the project. This project will improve the quality and diversity of housing and the urban environment and achieve urban consolidation through improved utilisation of land resources. It will also achieve a better balance of public and private housing and enhance community spirit. The neighbourhood renewal program will promote home ownership to tenants and private owners/occupiers whilst also aligning housing opportunities with the Housing SA customer profile. Other effects of the project will be to: promote energy-efficient design and construction; increase capital values of dwellings retained by the Housing Trust or developed by Housing SA; enhance streetscapes and public spaces; reduce maintenance costs; and create a safe and more sustainable community. All the dwellings have been audited to determine condition and a maintenance schedule, and it is evident that most of the double units constructed in the 1960s have reached the end of their economic life. The project commits to initiatives that minimise energy consumption through the use of mandated solar hot water services, passive design principles such as orientation of buildings, maximum use of natural lighting where practicable and development of urban design guidelines. Contractors are required to recycle 90 per cent of construction waste, excluding asbestos contaminated materials. The project is anticipated to be completed over approximately four years, but this is dependent upon the rate at which allotments are able to be sold. The first house and allotment sales are anticipated to occur in June 2008. Based upon the evidence considered, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee recommends the proposed public works. Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Finniss Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:55): Once again, I have pleasure in supporting this motion of the member for Norwood. It was an interesting project to follow through on and, of course, the issue is really the public value of the proposed project. I believe that it does have quite a bit of public value. I think that it is in the best interests of the people of that area that this renewal project go ahead. It will create a more sustainable community which better reflects the residents' needs in that area. Indeed, it will probably need something of a lift out there to change the way things are, and I think that this is a good start. It will benefit members of the Elizabeth Park community through the improved utilisation of its land resources. It will allow more affordable housing opportunities. It will enhance the streetscapes and public areas, and it will reduce the traffic congestion, which is an important part of it. I think that we can do a lot more of that. A concern that I raise is that we are doing this up there, but the government, in its wisdom, has decided to expand the urban growth boundaries down in the south, and clearly the Onkaparinga council is desperately unhappy about what is being proposed down there and what is being pushed onto the Onkaparinga council. If you balance up the two projects, I think that the government wants to be a bit broader in the way it thinks through these things. Much of the current housing stock in the proposed project area was built in the 1960s during that great influx of migration principally from Europe and the United Kingdom. The residents will benefit greatly from the construction of new dwellings designed specifically to meet their needs. If you think back to what was built in the 1960s, construction methods in this next century are quite different to those of the 1960s and they look fairly severely outdated and, indeed, they do not look anything like modern construction methods. Having said that, I would point out that, in the 1960s when they built, they did have wider verandas, and they did not stick airconditioners in everywhere as we do now. They also put rainwater tanks and similar in place to satisfy the needs of the residents, and I think that is something that we are not really smart about now. I think that modern construction methods leave a lot to be desired. We just consume more and more energy by putting airconditioners in places, and we do not conserve water. I think that is something that, ultimately, we need to rethink, and perhaps the Elizabeth Park area is a good place to recommence that thought process. The project will provide positive indirect benefits to the wider community through increased employment, particularly during the construction phase and through a strategy developed to minimise environmental impact, and we need to make sure that— An honourable member interjecting: Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Mr PENGILLY: I have the floor. An honourable member interjecting: Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Mr PENGILLY: I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: My advice is that you cannot seek leave to continue your remarks on private members' business. Motion carried.