Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Contributory Items in Development Plans) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:40): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill serves one clear purpose: to strengthen the protection of our state's built history and streetscape character. In short, it is designed to protect our streets and neighbourhoods from mass demolition and the destruction of the fabric of our communities.

Since the State Planning Commission released a series of discussion papers and accompanying documents in May last year, concerns have grown amongst the South Australian community that our state's built history and streetscape character will be threatened under policy changes earmarked under the Planning and Design Code. Importantly, strong and widespread opposition has built against the government's policy to not transfer contributory items from council development plans to the new Planning and Design Code.

Contributory items are commonly understood as buildings or structures that demonstrate historic, economic or social themes and characteristics as expressed predominantly in a historic conservation zone or, under the Planning and Design Code, a Historic Area Overlay. Therefore, the value of contributory items is the individual contribution they make to a historic conservation zone overall.

In many councils, contributory items have been painstakingly identified through the survey work of heritage experts. They have been individually identified so that, in many council areas, they enjoy enhanced protections against demolition in order to ensure that the history and character of the historic conservation zone is not diluted by their removal.

The South Australian community has been advised throughout the policy development phase of the Planning and Design Code that the code in its initial form would largely transfer the policy content contained in council development plans. There are many examples in the draft Planning and Design Code for phase 2 and phase 3 council areas where this has not occurred, but one of the most glaring examples is the refusal of the government to transfer contributory items to the Planning and Design Code.

In June last year, I wrote about these concerns to the chair of the State Planning Commission. I emphasised the individual contribution that contributory items make to the built history and streetscape character of our communities and how their removal would dilute the value, dwelling by dwelling, of a historic conservation zone or, under the Planning and Design Code, a Historic Area Overlay.

I also emphasised that heritage and planning experts could point to instances where the individual listing of contributory items in council development plans has protected buildings from demolition in the Environment, Resources and Development Court proceedings, in contradiction to the advice and rhetoric of both the State Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning.

In fact, it is worth emphasising that several councils, the Local Government Association, many planners, heritage experts and the Protect our Heritage Alliance have expressed severe apprehension about the inclusion of one of the criteria that will be used to assess whether buildings and structures can be demolished in the Planning and Design Code's Historic Area Overlay, namely, whether the structural integrity or condition of the building is beyond economic repair. This will apply weaker protections to contributory items than are currently applied in many council development plans.

The local government sector have not sat on their hands and have been very proactive in developing ways for the state government to progress this matter without destroying our built heritage. Councils have consulted widely and invested heavily in obtaining appropriate heritage and legal advice, but to no avail. Many councils, including the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council and my own Town of Gawler, have made considerable efforts to find workable solutions to this devastating policy, but have at all times been rebuffed by the Marshall Liberal government.

In my letter to the State Planning Commission, I suggested that, to prevent the dilution of our state's built history and streetscape character from occurring one dwelling at a time, the government should transfer all contributory items currently identified in council development plans into the Planning and Design Code. This would ensure that all contributory items would enjoy the same demolition protections under the Planning and Design Code that they currently enjoy under the council development plans in which they are identified.

In simple terms, this is what the bill would deliver: it will transfer all contributory items currently identified under council development plans to the Planning and Design Code, and these items will enjoy the same demolition protections as they currently enjoy under the existing council development plans. In the letter I sent last June to the State Planning Commission chair, I also suggested that a process should be developed under the Planning and Design Code for the establishment of a consistent statewide process for the identification of contributory items and the application of rigorous demolition protections.

I make it very clear: we are not opposed to ensuring that we have a consistent scheme across the state. What we are opposed to is the removal of all these contributory items without protections. This bill and our suggestions made to the government will enable those to be transferred and, through a consistent process, enable those things to be identified across the state to ensure we have a scheme in place that is consistent so that residents know what protections they have, and also, importantly, that the development sector know what they are dealing with. This bill would deliver that.

The bill should be supported. I have introduced it into the house to provide the government with the opportunity to rethink their commitment to our state's built history and streetscape character, which is so important to our communities. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.