Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:31): I rise to support the bill. Of course, I welcome this extension of time that I understand will be taken to look at the implementation of these changes and ensure that, as far as possible, they are put into place effectively and actually achieve what they are meant to achieve. In my community, I have been calling for a delay in the implementation of this for quite some months. I have been calling for it because I have been listening to people in my local community.

The feedback I have been getting from people is that this code is not ready for implementation yet. Certainly at a council level the changes have not been bedded in enough and the councillors, in particular, need more time to get across this. I know that because about a month or so ago the member for Light and I hosted a very productive forum with mayors from the southern suburbs—namely, the City of Mitcham, the City of West Torrens, the City of Marion and the City of Unley—and we spoke to them about their views on the code.

There was a diversity of views on the full breadth of the code, but one thing that shone through very strongly in the very strong feedback that we got from them was that they were not ready to implement this. Some of us on this side have been fighting hard to make sure that the many errors are ironed out in this code, that people's views are listened to properly and that councils and others are equipped to be able to implement this quite massive change to the planning system. We are, of course, delighted that there is now the flexibility to be able to do that, and that is why we are supporting this change.

I am very glad that the government has listened to Labor's calls on this, and the calls of others as well. Of course, Mr Parnell in the other place was the originator of this bill that has now been adopted by the government. We supported it in the upper house, and of course we are supporting it again here today, just because it is a good idea—it just makes sense. I did want to clarify, though, or raise, some comments that the Attorney-General made right at the beginning of her address, right before mine, in which I understood that she was thanking her colleague, minister Knoll, for extending the amount of time for consultation.

Certainly, while there have been calls for the consultation period to be extended, noting that it was quite a lengthy consultation period already, my understanding is that the consultation period was not lengthened at all and that it closed on 28 February. If the government has changed their view on that in some way, I would love to be enlightened about that, but as far as I understand all consultation was due on 28 February and is now being digested, I hope, by those who are charged with looking at this information. Hopefully, it will then be translated into the necessary changes.

I am certainly aware of scores and scores of errors in the proposed code—that 3,000-odd page document—pertaining to my area, and it has been very difficult for people to provide feedback on the code when there are so many errors in it. Typically, people will have raised these errors at a number of forums that the Planning Commission and DPTI have run. I welcome the fact that they have done that consultation, but then people have had no feedback about whether those changes are being made to the code and then have no document to reflect upon to see if the changes that they have been asking for, the errors that are in the code, have actually been adopted.

The difficult circumstance that my constituents are in is that they have been red flagging these errors, and the councils have as well. There are scores of errors in this document, things like character zones not reflected, things like streets not being in there. Most notably—and I will get onto this in more detail in a moment—there are things like zones that have been allocated that the locals think are completely contradictory and do not make any sense for the area. That leads them therefore to think, 'Hang on, maybe this is yet another error.'

It is very confusing for residents, most of whom do not have any planning qualifications, to look at this document, to be raising red flags or having to question whether something is an error or an actual intent of the government, and then they have received no document back. There has not been a second draft. Certainly, something that this side of the place has also been calling for is for a revised document to be produced, for people to be able to see that and have some confidence that the government has taken on board the self-admitted errors that are in this document, so that they can clearly see that they have been listened to and that errors have been amended, but that where things were not errors and were clearly the intention and the policy intent of the government that is made obvious to them.

I also wanted to focus for a moment on the following. I have done some fairly extensive community consultation since this process started. In October, I went out and spoke to people at a series of street corner meetings. Then in November I wrote to all householders in my electorate and invited them to a series of forums. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Michael Lennon, who attended those forums and was very gracious with his time, very generous, and answered the many questions of people in my area about this code. That was November, and a lot has happened since then.

People have certainly had more questions and where possible, people have been attending the public forums, but I think there is still a great deal of uncertainty, among my community at least, about what this code actually means. I might just let you know about a few of the pieces of feedback that I have received from my community. I surveyed my whole community and received many hundreds of survey responses on these cards. I might just let you know about a bit of the feedback that I have had.

There are certain geographical areas that were really prominent in the feedback that I received, and Kurralta Park is certainly one of them. There is a very strong view among people in Kurralta Park that their area is suffering the worst of the density and from some really poor planning and development decisions there. This one is from Steve in Glandore, and he says:

Since moving to Glandore in 1992 I'm concerned about the density of developments in Kurralta Park. Even in peak traffic times on Anzac Highway we have cars peeling off and driving through Glandore to Beckham Street. I believe due to the high density development in Kurralta Park fire brigades and ambos cannot access streets due to a number of cars parking in the streets.

This one is from Barb at Clarence Park, and she says:

I have watched the surrounding area slowly being ruined by lovely old houses pulled down and replaced by boring boxes. It is so sad.'

Another person from Kurralta Park talks about the density in the area, and the fact they cannot really drive down their street anymore, and I think quite accurately says, ‘My story is being repeated over and over and over again in Kurralta Park.’ That is certainly the feedback I have received. That one was from Ruth in Kurralta Park. Another person pleads with the government here, and says, ‘What control do I have that a multistorey building will not be built next to my house?’ That is from Joe at Keswick. Noel and Lyn from North Plympton have written:

Since 1991, 40 new houses have been built in Talbot Avenue at North Plympton, 750 metres long and the stormwater infrastructure is insufficient and cannot cope.

That is something I have also heard in our community, particularly in North Plympton. King from South Plympton writes:

I have far less in terms of quality of life since I came here in 1999. I feel powerless and would upgrade out of here if only I could afford it.

I think that is a very sad sentiment. I think we live in an absolutely brilliant area, and it is really sad when I get feedback from people saying that their quality of life is being affected by planning decisions to the effect that they do not want to live in our area anymore, or they would not if they did not have to. I received this one from Despina in South Plympton, and she says:

I'm worried about the high density of houses in my area. Traffic has already increased and is making it difficult for me to go about my daily tasks.

Another one is from Greg, who lives in Kurralta Park, and says:

When fully developed the streets in Kurralta Park will lack charm and individuality. The monotony will be uninspiring. Four units per block is too dense when built side-by-side. There needs to be space in between blocks of townhouses. Alternate blocks should have lower density and higher-quality housing.

This one is from Jody from Ascot Park:

Over the last 20 years the area has gone from a quiet, green family area to being way over-developed with no greenery, no parking and too noisy with too many people living in each other's pockets. I'm thinking of moving because of this.

As I said, that absolutely breaks my heart. Amanda from South Plympton says:

Almost every house sold in my area in recent years has been demolished and replaced with two, four or even 16 units in one instance on the same block of land. There is a lack of parking and there has been a major loss of big trees.

This resident from South Plympton says:

I cannot get my rubbish collected. New infill means people park on the street and the rubbish truck cannot get to the bins.

That is something which has been raised with me before and which is of serious concern. The other major theme that has come through the many hundreds of these survey cards returned to me is a sentiment that is expressed here by Robert from Ashford, who says, 'Where are all the trees for our children's future?' This, of course, is an excellent point. The tenor of the responses I am getting, though, is not simply that people are saying, 'Not in my backyard. We don't want this. We're anti-development. We don't want anything built that we didn't come up with ourselves.' In fact, it is quite the opposite. Stephen from Plympton captures that in saying, 'Look, I'm not anti-development, but more thought and balance is required.'

That is the feedback that I am getting from my community, and what I have received over the last few months while I have been engaging in a pretty thorough exercise of consultation with my community is that people acknowledge that there does need to be development. We cannot keep expanding out into agricultural land, out into other areas without endlessly—sorry, did you have a contribution there?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Ms STINSON: Well, maybe you might listen to my whole contribution rather than interrupt what I am saying, minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Ms STINSON: I am reflecting on your consultation process.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Badcoe, you do not need to respond to interjections. I do not think there was an intentional interjection.

Ms STINSON: I think it was, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it was, then that was out of order as well. He has taken his seat. Please continue with your contribution.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, sir. As I was saying, the feedback I am getting from my community is that people understand that there does need to be some level of density, that we cannot simply keep building out into country areas, being further and further away from infrastructure, and even building into agricultural land. That is a sentiment that people expressed to me.

Also, a lot of people have expressed to me that they do understand what the former Labor government's intent was. It was that we would have greater density around transport routes, around railway lines, tramlines and major roads. However, that has to be balanced. There has to be development that does take into account the character and nature of the suburbs in which people live. We do not want to see beautiful suburbs like Glandore, Clarence Park, Black Forest, North Plympton and Kurralta Park giving up all their character and all the things that make those areas special for poor planning decisions.

The feedback that I am getting from my community is that we need to find that balance. This person said to me, 'I'm not anti-development, but more thought and balance is required.' That has certainly been the feedback that I have had from my community over recent months while I have been conducting quite comprehensive consultation with my community about the design code. I also just want to take some time to point out a particular issue that has come up in relation to the code. I am glad that the minister is in the chamber right now. I am hoping that he may listen to this because this is the nub of the submission that I have put in myself on behalf of my constituents to the code feedback process. I might just run through it.

I have been approached by hundreds of local people about the proposed zoning changes to Black Forest, Clarence Park and part of Everard Park. Residents are particularly concerned about the impact the change to a general neighbourhood zone would have on the character of their suburbs. Residents have expressed to me that they do not believe that it is a like-for-like transition as promised. Detailed below are some of the main concerns people have raised with me about the effect of the change to a general neighbourhood zone.

They are loss of vegetation, particularly larger trees that provide canopy; decreased off-street parking; decreased minimum window sill height, reducing privacy; congested streets; decreased minimum front setbacks for dwellings; decreased minimum block size; no side or rear setback; decreased minimum dwelling footprint; increased subdivisions; increased removal of trees in the public domain; no provision for the protection of character homes; increased maximum roof surface area; and no provision for the increased demand for services resulting from greater density.

The general neighbourhood zone, which is proposed for Black Forest, Clarence Park and a little part of Everard Park, is simply not consistent with new zones for neighbouring suburbs. There appears to be absolutely no rationale for why these three suburbs have been singled out for different treatment to the adjoining suburbs, which are remarkably similar locales.

Black Forest, Clarence Park and part of Everard Park are being treated unfairly. In my submission, I have also put forward emails from residents detailing their concerns about the impact of a general neighbourhood zone. Along with residents, as a local MP I would like to see these concerns taken seriously and the zoning changed to a suburban neighbourhood zone, which would be consistent with the surrounding suburbs. Residents believe that a suburban neighbourhood zone would provide the like-for-like transition they were promised by the planning authorities and indeed by the state government. I have also had scores of conversations with people about this unfair zoning at public forums and public events.

The question that goes through my mind about why these three suburbs have been treated differently from others is: is this simply another error? Is this actually a mistake? It would make a lot more sense for it to be a suburban neighbourhood zone consistent with all the other suburbs around it, but because of that process whereby a document has been put forward—some 3,000 pages riddled with errors, and no-one really knows which ones are the errors that are going to be corrected and which ones are actually serious policy intent—residents in my area are left not knowing whether this is just an oversight, whether in fact the government meant to make this a suburban neighbourhood zone or whether the policy intent is for it to be a general neighbourhood zone and for their suburbs to be treated differently and singled out for a greater level of development than the areas that surround them.

There has certainly been no explanation provided to my community so far about why Black Forest, Clarence Park and a little sliver of Everard Park would be treated differently to suburbs like Forestville, Glandore or the rest of Everard Park. I really would welcome the minister's feedback and response to the letter that I have written to him and to Michael Lennon about that, because it really is a mystery to people in my community about whether this is actually intentional or whether this is one of the errors that is set to be changed in the next draft of the code that we see.

I, for one, certainly hope it is the latter. If not, I will of course be fighting as hard as I can for my community to make sure there are consistent results right across my community and that we have a strong planning system that actually means that people know what the rules are and can stick to them. That is all I wish to contribute.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:50): I rise to speak to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill. I was very interested by some of the member for Badcoe's contribution about people from her electorate actually complaining about the so-called sins of the current planning system. My understanding is that, as far as the Planning and Design Code goes, we are trying to reach some uniformity, and it is difficult. It is great to get that community feedback from constituents, but I note that they are actually talking about things that have happened in the past.

As I said, the whole idea of the code is to get some lines in the sand, so to speak, so there can be some uniformity. I remember when we debated the planning bill and what I call the birthday, when the planning bill was rebirthed in 2016. It was a very interesting debate. The former member for Enfield of blessed memory, the Hon. John Rau, was in charge. What intrigued me about that debate was that there were at least 300 amendments by the previous Labor government, who were in charge at the time.

I will acknowledge the former member for Goyder, as did the Deputy Premier, for the work he did. He basically lived this legislation. I remember the number of briefing papers he brought to the party room as things were moving. It was a movable feast, as the government of the day, the former Labor government, kept changing the rules as things went along. There were a whole range of other difficulties with that debate, and I will get to some of that a little bit later on.

I have had a little bit to do with this code, having formerly been on the Environment, Resources and Development Committee as the Chair, though I am not there at the moment. Phase 1 of the code (outback areas) has been in operation since 1 July 2019. Obviously, this took up most of the state. Phase 2 (regional South Australia), which obviously encompasses a lot of our country members' electorates, including mine of Hammond, was to be in operation in April 2020. However, this bill removes the commencement dates from the act at the government's discretion. We as the Marshall Liberal government have delayed the commencement of phase 2 to make sure that the public is ready to use the code when it does commence.

A few years ago, I took some constituents in to see some planners at one of my local councils. I said, 'Where are we going with this development? What's going on?' and within earshot of my constituents one of the planners said, 'Planning is a grey area.' I looked at them and thought to myself, 'That's not very helpful.' If you want to talk about grey areas, look at the debacle that happened at Mount Barker—I think it has been straightened out a bit as time goes on—where developers blatantly got in front of infrastructure. That was probably some of the impetus for the new planning legislation back in 2016.

In regard to metropolitan Adelaide, which will be phase 3 of the rollout of the Planning and Design Code, the Hon. Mark Parnell introduced the bill into the other place in late 2019, and it was then introduced into this house. The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act currently requires the full introduction of the Planning and Design Code across the state by 1 July 2020. The effect of the bill is to give the Minister for Planning the ability to postpone the effect of this bill, to postpone the introduction of the code for South Australia at the minister's direction. It is proposed that we will progress with this bill, looking for it to pass through all stages.

The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act is the most significant reform of planning and development legislation since the introduction of the Development Act 1993, which that act replaces. The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act includes the establishment of the code, which is intended to progressively replace council development plans by 1 July 2020, establishing a single set of planning policies for development assessment across South Australia. This is a good thing because we need to have the right guidelines, the right code in place, so that people can make decisions knowing that a development is either likely to get up or is not likely to get approved.

The code has had an extensive consultation program since early October 2019. That has been undertaken by the State Planning Commission, and I want to acknowledge the work of Michael Lennon in regard to that. He has presented it multiple times to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. Submissions from both local government and the broader community have indicated the scale of change brought about by the code and associated reform, which requires some further time for consideration and preparation.

In response to industry and community feedback, the state government is reintroducing this legislation to give stakeholders some time to implement the new Planning and Design Code. There has been some concern raised in both rural and metropolitan councils around the consultation versions of the code released in October last year. A lot of that feedback said it needed some further refinement and that councils had not had enough time to re-engineer the required business practices that introduction of the code and its associated reforms require.

However, the Marshall Liberal government, under the guidance of the Minister for Planning, is on track to deliver the new Planning and Design Code on time. We are also acting on advice from the State Planning Commission based on stakeholder and community feedback, and I think it is sensible that we do that. Councils, industry and the community have all asked for more time to understand, prepare and become business ready before the new planning system comes into place.

The commission has closely monitored these submissions, in particular stakeholder readiness, and considers that further time is warranted to ensure the code is of sufficient quality and that stakeholders are adequately prepared for the change. It would be counterproductive to the planning system and developments across South Australia if we were to ignore the feedback from councils and the community and push ahead with the initial time lines. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.