House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. A. PICCOLO House of Assembly Light The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:49): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. A. PICCOLO House of Assembly Light The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:50): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce the car parking requirements amendment bill. Last year when I introduced this bill for the first time, I noted that in recent years we have witnessed too many development approvals in metropolitan Adelaide—for apartment blocks, townhouses and subdivisions—which provide inadequate off-street car parking for residents. I noted that as a result communities now associate urban infill with congestion, inconvenience and a lack of amenity. Only in the last few weeks I met with a number of councils, and they expressed a concern. One of those councils was actually the City of Marion, who said that the biggest complaint they get from infill development is the issue of car parking on streets. When I introduced the bill last year, I also noted that this has created inhospitable streetscapes congested with parked cars. Certainly, if you speak to the residents of some parts of Lightsview, that would be a view strongly held by them. I recounted what we on this side of the chamber have heard loud and clear from our constituents—that inadequate car parking is severely impacting on community amenity and wellbeing. The parked cars of residents are spilling out onto streets, creating unwanted congestion and adversely impacting on visitors, including carers and health professionals who attempt to provide essential care to residents in densely developed neighbourhoods. I reminded members that development should serve the community, and the planning system should demand design standards that deliver community amenity. This bill requires a minimum of one off-street car park per dwelling, regardless of description—for example, studio apartment, etc.—and a minimum of two off-street car parks for dwellings of two or more bedrooms. If these requirements are not met, developers must either provide the equivalent number of car parks in a shared off-street car parking facility—not more than 100 metres from the dwelling—or have the development application assessed as a 'restricted development', which features extensive public consultation, submission and appeal rights. These legislative requirements are needed because the existing car parking requirements contained in council development plans are either inadequate or have been subverted through development assessment processes. Unfortunately, the draft Planning and Design Code, which will replace council development plans at some stage, has not taken the opportunity to regulate car parking requirements to ensure that the parked cars of residents do not spill out into suburban streets. Informed by the thresholds of the existing council development plans, the draft code only requires two off-street car parks per dwelling when the threshold of three bedrooms is reached—and I think that minimum threshold of three bedrooms is very important. This is inadequate to avoid on-street car parking congestion. When I introduced this bill into the house last year, I dealt with the criticisms I had encountered through the public consultation process that the bill does not accommodate likely future public transport use or innovative transport options, such as ride-sharing. My response was that we must flexibly deal with the problems of today while intelligently planning for the future. The reality is that public transport use does not increase unless services are provided. I cited the example of the Lightsview development, where the road traffic infrastructure for bus services has been provided, but not the bus services themselves, because of the perception that there is insufficient demand. The fact is that private car use will remain high if viable alternatives are not provided. Public transport options must be convenient, accessible, frequent and affordable. Ride-sharing arrangements, including through autonomous vehicles, may also prove popular in time, but how long must residents in congested suburban neighbourhoods have to wait for this reality? This bill does not seek to deal with all the challenges presented by urban infill development—a private member's bill of this nature simply cannot—but it does provide an immediate remedy to a burning community problem through statute, which cannot be overturned except through a restricted-development assessment process. When I introduced this bill last year, I offered the government and its members, many of whom represent electorates with extensive infill developments, an opportunity to address this serious issue. But what was the government's response? Did members opposite support the bill? The answer is, no, they did not. In his contribution to the debate in the committee stage of the bill, the Minister for Planning got stuck on a misunderstanding of the legalities of compelling developments on separate titles. The bill proposes no such thing; it merely offers a proponent the opportunity to offset their car parking requirements through an associated shared car parking facility on a separate allotment within 100 metres, which would be included in a single development application enforceable by the relevant planning authority. The minister also got stuck on the requirements for developments that do not adhere to the car parking requirements needing to go through the restricted-development assessment process. He claimed that this process was not envisaged to be used for these types of developments. This was not the advice I received from his department. They advised that the restricted-development assessment process would not operate like the current noncomplying process. Instead, they advised it had been designed as a rigorous performance assessment process, and there is a big difference there. This provides an acceptable assessment for apartment developments in the CBD, which would be assessed by SCAP in any case if their value exceeded $10 million. Last year, members opposite chose to ignore the legitimate concerns of their constituents. By reintroducing this bill, I am giving them another opportunity to support it. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.