House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Urban Density ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: URBAN DENSITY Ms THOMPSON House of Assembly Reynell Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (17:30): I move: That the 73^rd report of the committee, entitled Urban Density, be noted. On 2 December 2010, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, on its own motion, sought to inquire into the effects of increasing urban density in South Australia. At this time, it was evident to the committee that there were concerns in some sections of the community about increasing urban density as a way to tackle urban sprawl. We felt it appropriate, given the functions of this committee, that we examine this issue in more detail. In order to garner views from an extensive array of stakeholders, the committee invited a number of witnesses to appear before it and also sought out submissions and other sources of information. The inquiry was advertised on 23 June 2010 through print and social media, and submissions were requested by August; however, the committee continued to hear submissions from people made after that date. The broad terms of reference for the inquiry were for the committee to inquire into and report on desirable social, health, environmental and economic outcomes of increased-density sustainable living in South Australia and appropriate strategies for achieving these outcomes. While these terms offered a broad field of examination, the committee was keen to ensure that its investigation was able to explore more deeply the effects of increasing urban density; therefore, in addition to the terms of reference, the committee included a comprehensive list of issues of interest that allowed the evidence to speak in detail to a wide array of topics. In total, the committee finalised 15 separate issues of interest which are, of course listed in the report. In the interests of expediency, I will not go through them now, but the list included the interplay between increasing urban density and other social issues such as demographic changes; health and lifestyle needs; public, community and affordable housing; and community engagement in the planning process, as well as covering elements relating to the impact of increasing urban density on the environment and implications for infrastructure planning. The evidence obtained from the 23 submissions and additional 23 witnesses provided the committee with a wealth of information so that every issue of interest was sufficiently explored. This evidence, in addition to the committee's site visits, both local and interstate, and its external research, ensures that the report laid on the table today provides a comprehensive overview of urban density in South Australia. The evidence and research considered in this report was diverse; however, there was a shared and resolute consensus: South Australia needs to increase urban density in order to protect the lifestyle, environmental and productive assets of the state. The committee understands that South Australia's changing urban landscape is an issue close to the hearts of many in this state, and that there are some who disagree with the premise of increasing South Australia's urban density. The committee welcomed these opinions throughout its inquiry. However, as the report explains, the evidence clearly shows that increasing urban density in the state is vital if we are to ensure vibrant, sustainable and affordable housing and livability options for the people of South Australia. These options are, of course, associated with relevant services that are readily accessible to people, entertainment activities and sporting activities, which are sufficiently dense to be sustained by the surrounding community. Urban sprawl was consistently identified in the evidence as highly problematic and as perpetuating a range of problems, from obesity and traffic congestion to housing affordability and poor utilisation of resources. Increasing urban density, meanwhile, was acknowledged as a solution to many of these problems, but the committee heard that there are still misconceptions and apprehension in the community regarding this approach. To address this, a key recommendation stemming from the inquiry is for the government to engage in a widespread educational campaign to inform the community of the adverse effects of urban sprawl and the benefits of increasing urban density. The committee came to realise that, unless the community is convinced that there is a problem, they are unlikely to want to put their back behind solving it, and there are many members of our community who do not yet have access to the information provided to the committee, which shows very clearly that the sprawl of the current population expansion is impossible to continue. Population is not the problem: the sprawl is the problem. The committee was keen to hear evidence on ways to facilitate more community engagement in the planning process, and a range of ideas and principles were presented to the inquiry. Two practical approaches that resonated with the committee and have formed part of our recommendations were for the government to consider the use of development notices on sites to inform local residents of forthcoming changes, and for the government to engage in a public consultation process to identify vistas and sightlines that are considered valuable by the community so that a planning strategy to protect them can be implemented. The committee was informed that this has been a successful process in London, Montréal and Vancouver. Another key recommendation is that the government drafts a set of design principles based on best practice models, which can be used as archetypal benchmarks to guide and assess positive examples of increased urban density. It became clear to the committee that these principles need to encapsulate the essence of good design and allow for flexibility so that they do not operate as a set of prescriptive and unyielding criteria. At the same time, people need to understand that increasing urban density does not yield vistas similar to what we see in The Bill on television, which appears to be what comes to mind to many people when they hear of increased density. They do not think of North Adelaide and the vibrancy of North Adelaide; they think of the horror of The Bill and the Housing Commission in Melbourne. With increasing urban density, apartment living is likely to become more common in Adelaide and, as such, the committee was keen to ensure that a range of lifestyle and livability needs are catered for. To facilitate this, the committee has recommended that the government reviews the strata management system, examining ways to streamline the current legislation, and consider establishing a conflict resolution agency specialising in property management. The committee has also recommended that current restrictions, such as drying washing on balconies and pet ownership, be re-examined so that they do not become deterrents to strata living. The committee was pleased to have heard from a broad spectrum of the community, from individuals and group representatives to academics, business people and planning experts, and we offer our thanks to those who provided their time and particularly their expertise to participate. They contributed crucial information and guidance to the committee and we are especially appreciative. Unfortunately, the committee also heard evidence from a range of people indicating that the inconsistency—usually inexplicable—in the requirements of different local government bodies is a persistent barrier to efficient and effective changes to density. This often adds to the costs for people wanting to change their accommodation to adapt to different stages in their lives. Local government has an important role to play in developing a vibrant community, not just in the city but throughout the suburbs. Thanks to the quality of the information provided, the committee was able to draw informed conclusions, and we are confident that the final 24 recommendations reflect the issues that arose in the evidence while balancing the diverse needs of the wider community. I would also like to extend my thanks to my fellow committee members for their contribution to this inquiry. I will not take up extra time by listing them, there have been many and they are, of course, included in the report. Thanks also to the committee staff: Phil Frensham, Debbie Bletsas, Susie Barber and Leah Skrzypiec, for their assistance. In conclusion, I urge members of this place and members of the community to regard this document and its supporting evidence as a resource to enhance the development of a viable, effective, healthy and well resourced community for the future. I believe this final report will make a very positive contribution to the ongoing debate about South Australia's urban future and I look forward to the minister's response. I commend this report to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.