Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Restricted Development) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2020.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (10:52): I rise to speak against the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Restricted Development) Amendment Bill 2020. As members in the chamber would be aware, since entering government in 2018 the Marshall Liberal team has been working very hard, together with the members in the department and the Planning Commission, to implement the planning reforms commenced by legislation of this parliament in 2016, and to facilitate the establishment of regulation, design codes and generally a new regime to ultimately conclude with our Development Act being completely repealed and a new regime coming into effect.

Indeed, I recently announced that phase 3 of the planning and development code will go live, as such, on 19 March this year. That final phase is very much part of the work that is being done that will have the effect of dealing with some 90 per cent of planning applications to progress the development of the state.

Very proudly I say that the implementation of the design code with the ePlanning technology has added some extra level of complexity but, nevertheless, it now allows both our outback and regional areas, through phases 1 and 2, to be able to access information electronically and to progress their planning applications, which has been very much appreciated by stakeholders who now have an opportunity to utilise that facility. It has not been without complication. As I say, phase 3, which takes up to 90 per cent of the applications for the state, is going to be the most comprehensive and extensive part of the reform.

Details of the State Planning Commission's proposed policy improvements include the treatment of the North Adelaide Historic Conservation Zone. For members who have not yet looked in any detail at the reforms in this area, I invite them to do so. For those who do not, let me outline that the code will contain policy addressing the development of North Adelaide's institutional sites, which reflects the current policy contained in Adelaide council's development plan.

This bill is seeking to amend section 66 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to not allow any exception to a development classified as restricted by the Planning and Design Code unless it is on the site of a prescribed institution within the area currently covered by the North Adelaide Historic Conservation Zone. This bill proposes similar changes to section 23 of the Development Act. I note the reason for introducing this bill is in direct response to the North Adelaide Large Institutions and Colleges DPA, another fraught process led by the former Attorney-General and the former Labor government.

For the purposes of the bill, prescribed institutions are defined as large institutional sites such as the Calvary hospital, Helping Hand Aged Care, Lincoln College, St Ann's College, St Dominic's Priory College and St Mark's College. Of course, we all know these are important institutions, not only for the North Adelaide community but for South Australia at large, and certainly their future is important to everyone.

Requiring the expansion of these sites to be restricted by legislation, even on adjoining land, I suggest with respect is a very blunt instrument that does not recognise the long-term establishment of these facilities and the need for investment to maintain viability and competitiveness. Additionally, it provides the City of Adelaide, the local council, limited opportunities for feedback on future developments relating to these institutions instead of requiring the State Commission Assessment Panel (often called SCAP) to make any and all decisions.

Any policy change relating to the development of these or adjoining sites is best addressed through the Planning and Design Code. As the planning minister, I will continue to work with the City of Adelaide and other stakeholders to ensure that the right performance-based policies are in the code to consider the impacts of development on its surrounding context and setting. In that regard, I commend the Lord Mayor for her diligent work in this area. I have had a number of meetings with her, not in relation to planning matters but obviously as the Minister for Local Government. I appreciate the work of her city council in looking at these matters and of course will continue to work with her.

While it is encouraging in a way, I suppose, that Labor are admitting their error in relation to the policy they introduced back in 2017, the fact of the matter remains that they are attempting to use a blunt instrument to fix something that can be better addressed through the Planning and Design Code. I would urge the member who introduced this bill to continue to be part of those conversations.

I remind members that consultation on the code was concluded just before Christmas as a general consultation process. There has been considerable comment in the submissions that were received, I say almost humbly, welcoming a number of proposed reforms and recommendations by the commission, which had given very careful consideration to, I think, the 1,800-odd submissions received during the phased proposal, which I had announced ought to have another concluding opportunity.

Whilst the number of matters was welcomed, that work has continued and has continued all through this last month. In fact, just last week I again had a meeting with all the stakeholders in relation to tree canopy proposals, how that is going to work and the scheme being proposed. I remind members that scheme is to enable the developer of a property to undertake either a program of replanting or protection of the tree canopy within a proposed development site or pay, into a fund to be established, from $300 for a small tree across to $1,000 for a mature tree.

The design principles in relation to streetscape and other proposals that encourage entry to property, opportunity for tree growth on the streetscape itself and on public lands have, I think, been welcomed. It is a very important part of the government's initiative in relation to climate change as well as helping our city, specifically, to keep cool. Tree canopy is a big issue for us, and the commissioners picked this up and have made amendments. We had a meeting last week in relation to that aspect.

As we move into this concluding period and I ultimately receive the recommendations of the commission, we are very pleased that we are now moving to an identified time when everyone knows that in March we are going to transfer and be able to move to all the good aspects of the new planning laws that were presented back in 2016. As I have said to the parliament before, I remember the then Minister for Planning, the former Attorney-General, saying to me, 'Look, it will take five years, Vickie, to actually bring all the processes into place—preparation of regulation, design codes, etc.'

I thought he was joking, but here we are. It is less than five years since the implementation of the act, so we have managed to keep it cranking along since we came into government to make sure that we have an outcome. It is important that we get on with this, because there are some very good reforms in that legislation from the 2016 act, and we need to be able to advance them.

This is an issue that has been raised by the Adelaide City Council and others, and I note that the bill attempts to deal with the concerns that were raised by these stakeholders. I do not criticise the member in any way for that but I suggest that, unfortunately, it is a very crude instrument that will not resolve the issue, and we have a better way. Sadly, on that basis I have to indicate that the bill will be opposed.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:03): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important matter, one that in my time as Minister for Planning I dealt with early on and one that I delved into extremely deeply, looking at the situation and some of the concerns that were raised.

For the benefit of the house, the Attorney-General is correct in that the North Adelaide large institutions DPA was initiated, started and finalised by the former Minister for Planning before we came into government. It was something that Martin Haese, the then Lord Mayor of Adelaide, raised with me on coming into the position, and it was one he felt did not see the outcome he would have liked.

It took me quite a while to delve into why there is this inherent conflict between competing land uses within this area that is not replicated across other places. It took a while to get to the bottom of it. For the benefit of the room, a patch of land will have a zone that sits over the top of it that says what you can do with that land. Normally, these are broken down into different types of land uses, whether they be residential in their myriad and various forms, whether it be commercial, industrial, or whether it be primary production and so forth.

What happens in North Adelaide is that the zone that was put together was one that had a single zone encompassing both residential and institutional development inside the same zone. For instance, where you have a residential house and an institution next door, you would have two different zones for two different land uses; in North Adelaide, there is a single zone designed to encompass both the residential and the institutional interchangeably within the same zone.

That has caused an inherent conflict in the way that that has been dealt with in North Adelaide, and it is something that is quite unique and took me a while to get my head around. Normally, what happens is that where an existing land use wants to expand their land use by taking on neighbouring property, they will need to undertake a rezoning process to change that zone, whereas in North Adelaide that is not the case because the zone was designed to encompass both uses inside the same zone, therefore precipitating this kind of development.

I certainly had a huge amount of representation from residents in North Adelaide who did not want to see an expansion of the institutions and colleges within the area. I also took the opportunity to meet with the institutions and colleges themselves—in fact, all their representatives, both themselves and their planning representatives—to discuss their side of the story. It was very clear to me that this was an issue that had been going on for a large number of years.

What was very clear to me from the institutions and colleges is that they have a history in North Adelaide that in many cases predates a lot of the residential development that currently exists in North Adelaide. If one thinks of North Adelaide and some of the institutions—again, the Attorney-General mentioned places like St Mark's and St Ann's—these institutions have been there forever and are very much part of the fabric of North Adelaide, so much so that many if not most of the institutions and colleges we are talking about have state heritage listed items as part of their existing development. They are very much part of the historical fabric of that which makes North Adelaide North Adelaide.

So to suggest that somehow these institutions and colleges did not belong in North Adelaide did not make any sense. I was pressured early on to undertake what is called a section 29 amendment in North Adelaide to essentially change some of the wording in relation to adjacent development. I think the phrase at the time was 'conjoining development'. Either way, there was a phrase that people thought I should use a section 29 amendment to be able to change.

A section 29 amendment, which was the only tool available to me unless we started a new DPA process, is normally used to correct some sort of vagary or mistake that has been made in the initial DPA. It is something the former minister John Rau used quite often. In fact, there has been some suggestion that he may have used that power beyond what the statute would have allowed him to do, so much so that in my time as planning minister, based on the advice I had I was extremely reticent to use it. Indeed, using a section 29 amendment process to change the institution and colleges DPA was not something we considered appropriate because it was going to change the fundamental nature in the way that DPA was to operate.

I am sure there will be those coming up soon who will try to suggest that this is somehow our problem. We are trying to fix the problem that we were left and that we inherited. Again, we seek to create a balanced outcome of competing historical interests in North Adelaide. We have undertaken unprecedented consultation in relation to the new planning system. As the Attorney pointed out, some 1,800 submissions have been taken over the course of many, many months. What we have sought to do is create a system that balances a whole series of competing and often diametrically opposed views within our community.

Often you will hear voices on the radio of those who are just pro-development in most if not all of its forms and those who are anti-development in most if not all of its forms, and the difficulty for governments and for planning ministers is trying to synthesise or balance these competing interests. Whilst we want to keep this beautiful place in which we live unique and special, we also cannot stagnate.

In fact, restrictive development policies will see young people move interstate, especially as housing affordability would worsen under such a regime but also because the jobs that the construction industry creates, and the jobs that are created when new commercial and industrial developments are undertaken, would not exist. So that balance is difficult. It is something I think that is very much enhanced as part of this new system.

What this bill attempts to do is essentially say, 'Any development that any institution and college wants to undertake outside their existing area inside this zone is restricted development,' i.e. it is the hardest pathway to get through. Again, I think the Attorney sums it up perfectly when she says that this is a blunt instrument.

I think what the mover was trying to achieve was to appease one section of the community when it comes to what appropriate development looks like to the detriment of other parts of our community. Again, that is something that opposition MPs may be able to engage with, but it is something that governments cannot engage with, because we have to govern for all South Australians rather than just for narrow vested interests.

What it also does is restrict what could be actually quite positive development within this area. There could be, for instance, a desire by some of these institutions and colleges to create a new low-density development inside this zone, a development that would actually be welcome, that would actually improve the landscape of North Adelaide, that would have to now be, under this proposal, pushed into the most difficult pathway. I think that is a retrograde step and one that should not be dealt with in the way the mover is seeking to deal with it.

In the end, having the institutions and colleges which have existed in North Adelaide for an extraordinarily long period of time interact with residential development—that interface, that potential conflict—needs to be managed everywhere across Adelaide and South Australia. Anywhere where you have, for instance, a school next to residential development, a hospital next to residential development, an aged-care facility next to residential development, those interfaces need to be managed.

So to pick out one instance where that interface needs to be managed and just make a development pathway as hard as possible I think speaks, again, to a desire to deal with a very narrow section of the community and a narrow section of our state as opposed to having to find holistic solutions that work wherever this inherent conflict takes place.

That is why I will certainly be voting against this bill and the government is voting against this bill, as I think what we have put in place now is a more comprehensive system that will improve the level of planning development across our state, improve the quality of it, but at the same time help to make sure that we can keep our young people here and grow jobs in South Australia.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (11:13): I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Restricted Development) Amendment Bill 2020. As some of the other members and the Attorney-General outlined earlier, the bill is seeking to amend section 66 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to not allow any exception to a development classified as restricted by the Planning and Design Code unless it is on the site of a prescribed institution within the area currently covered by the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone. The bill proposes similar changes to section 23 of the Development Act.

For the purposes of the bill, prescribed institutions are defined as large institutional sites such as the Calvary hospital, Lincoln College, St Ann's College and a number of other sites. Requiring the expansion of these sites be restricted by legislation, even on adjoining land, as the Attorney-General has outlined, is a very blunt instrument that does not recognise the long-term establishment of these facilities and the need for investment to maintain viability and competitiveness.

As an alternative appropriate approach, expansions should be addressed through carefully constructed, performance-based policies in the Planning and Design Code, which considers the impact of development on its surrounding contexts and setting. To that end, I really want to talk about the ability of the PDI Act to do this and respond with flexibility to different areas.

We know already that phases 1 and 2 of the Planning and Design Code have already been in operation since 31 July last year across rural and outback South Australia. Phase 3, which really impacts and includes my electorate, will complete the statewide rollout, bringing the code to metropolitan areas and, as I mentioned, to my electorate. This is the final step of the process and will bring the new code to all South Australians regardless of where they live.

I think there is some misinformation out there in the community about the code being a one-size-fits-all approach that does not really acknowledge the different types of development, character and heritage of certain areas, but this is certainly not the case. I think it is more valuable and useful to think about the code becoming a single reference point for the state's planning and assessment industry and consolidating South Australia's 72 development plans into one clear place, making it a clearer planning rule book, obviously with the aims of making it more certain and consistent for all decision-making processes and assessment.

I know that this acknowledgement of carefully constructed, performance-based policies that are captured in different overlays is really important to residents living in my electorate. Recently the City of Mitcham submitted a development plan amendment titled 'Special residential character areas'. It covered areas such as Westbourne Park, Cumberland Park and Hawthorn, which are all in the electorate of Elder.

I held a street corner meeting regarding the City of Mitcham's Special Residential Character Areas Development Plan Amendment and was quite impressed by the turnout of the number of residents who came to chat about their development plan amendment. I think on a Saturday morning I had about 20 to 30 people who came along just to give their views on what they thought was important for their area, and I also received a number of emails and calls providing feedback. I know that the City of Mitcham likewise received an excessive amount of correspondence, because people really do care about where they live. They know their streets. They are obviously invested in them, and any development that occurs on those streets impacts their life every single day.

Some of the feedback that I heard from my local residents in regard to the City of Mitcham's draft Special Residential Character Areas Development Plan Amendment was that, overall, they overwhelmingly supported it, but things covering the built form were really important to local residents, particularly in Cumberland Park, Westbourne Park and Hawthorn, where they valued the character of their homes, commenting that any development that should occur should be quality and fit in with the existing character of their area.

They also spoke about site coverage, about the trees and the importance of tree canopy. I know the Attorney-General mentioned trees earlier when she was speaking. The Minister for Environment and Water is doing an incredible job through Green Adelaide to increase our tree canopy all across metropolitan Adelaide, which is really important to local residents.

I have one particular street in St Marys where the council has put in for a Green Adelaide grant. I think it was actually through a local government grant under the Attorney-General's portfolio. It was successful in receiving funding so that they can transform that street into a park-like environment, and I just know local residents will love that. The other feedback that I heard from residents in regard to their character area and development and the PDI Act was the importance of multi-storey development being appropriate—block sizes, open space and, of course, the overall design of building that might be next door to them.

Whilst this bill is looking to legislate regarding large institutions and it is more in North Adelaide, I really want to speak on it because I know how important it is for my local residents in terms of the Planning and Design Code. I know firsthand the amount of feedback that I have received and how important it is that there is a preference for appropriate expansion addressed through carefully constructed, performance-based policies, and that is already incorporated in the Planning and Design Code.

As the member for Schubert mentioned earlier, he is not supporting the bill. The government is not supporting the bill. I am not supporting the bill. We really want to see a more nuanced approach to planning in South Australia which is in line with community expectations, rather than this bill which, as has been mentioned, is a rather blunt instrument. I do not support the bill.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:20): The government has had three speakers and they have made it quite clear they are going to oppose the bill, so there is not much benefit in hearing from a number of other members from the government's side, especially given the previous speaker spoke about everything except North Adelaide. I will be pursuing this bill as, by the admission of the speakers themselves, what has been proposed as an alternative is watered down. It does not provide for the aspirations of the people of North Adelaide.

By their own admission in their debate, they have actually said what they are proposing is—they have used a range of other language, but in effect it waters down the proposal. It does not provide the watertight protections that the residents of North Adelaide are seeking from the destruction of the architecture and environment of North Adelaide. It is interesting, Mr Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Actually, I heard all the other speakers in silence; I think they should grant me the same courtesy.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The member for Light will resume his seat. The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member knows that it is important that there be no statements made that are—there has not been one shred of statement to talk about the difference, and I just ask you—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to bring the member to order. I am offended by that. To suggest and assert—

Mr Picton: Point of order: there is no point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has asserted that there have been speakers from the government's side who claimed there had been a 'watering down' of a proposal—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I am just making the point—

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order, Deputy Premier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not yet taken any action to move a motion in relation to mislead, but I make the point.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will resume her seat. The member for Light has the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can understand the government members' sensitivity at this issue; I really can understand that because what they are proposing here is a watered down version, by their own admission. They have used language to suggest—and they have actually said—that mine is a blunt instrument. It is intended to be, because it is intended to provide the protection which the residents of North Adelaide want.

By their own admission, the speakers from the government have said mine is a blunt instrument and they are going to water it down. They have watered it down. In fact, the previous minister sat on this matter for years; he was not prepared to deal with it. He went out into the community with the member for Adelaide and said they could not do anything because there was a court case. He said, 'I can't touch this because there is a court case going on at the moment,' yet the government have now been dragged, kicking and screaming, to make some modifications to the code. They have been dragged, kicking and screaming—well, first of all, they had to get rid of the minister to do it—to try to appease the people of North Adelaide, but they will not.

The people of North Adelaide are smart enough to work out that what they have been sold here is a pup. It will not provide protection from the wanton demolition of the architecture and environment within North Adelaide. It is quite clear what the development plan is designed to do: it is to make sure that it is essentially a residential area within some institutional capacity. No problem. The City of Adelaide agrees with that, and I agree with that. My bill seeks to protect that.

The government is saying, 'Actually, we don't like that. We think the institutions should be allowed to grow and they should be able to knock over adjacent buildings, etc.' That is what this bill seeks to stop. That is what the people of North Adelaide want. The government know this. They have tried to provide some watered down version to appease the people of North Adelaide but it will not wash.

The people of North Adelaide are quite clear about what they want. They want to make sure that development occurs—and development should occur—within the existing footprint of those institutional sites. Nobody has a problem with that: I do not, the residents of North Adelaide do not, the previous government did not.

What this government wants to do, though, is open the floodgates (to use a water analogy) so that those institutions can expand further and further, until they become the prominent land users rather than residents using it for residential land use. That is what the people of North Adelaide are worried and concerned about and what they do not want. The government proposal—because it is only a policy; it is only in the code—can be changed even further, in the same way that they have been changing the drafts over the last two years to try to appease a whole range of people, but they have done it without success.

All of a sudden, the government now has a conscience about the people of North Adelaide, which it has not had for the last couple of years. We have been told that we have been scaring people. We have been told that these proposals have merits. Well, this bill has merit because it delivers exactly what the people of North Adelaide aspire to for their community in terms of protecting the amenity of North Adelaide. With those comments, I will be supporting the bill. I ask the chamber to support the bill because it delivers on what the people in that community want.