Glenside Urban Corridor (Living) Code Amendment

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (15:41): I rise once again to talk about the Glenside Urban Corridor (Living) Code Amendment, which is a new code amendment being proposed that has the effect of increasing the maximum building heights in Glenside at the Cedar Woods development to 20 storeys, up from the existing eight storeys at that site.

One of the concerns that I raised last time I spoke in this place about this code amendment was that it was all happening without much consultation with my local community. In the meantime, what I have gone and done is the job that the minister has not done, which is go and ask locals what they actually think of this idea. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted a public meeting in Glenside, which was attended by hundreds of locals. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Mayor of Burnside who came along, the federal member James Stevens who came along, and the member for Unley who came along. A number of elected representatives from Burnside council and a number of local residents addressed the meeting as well.

Everyone was quite united in a very clear message that they do not want these 20-storey towers in Glenside. Their concerns fell into a number of buckets. First, there was a lot of concern that this whole debate was happening divorced from any discussion about investment in public infrastructure. When we see unrestrained, high-rise, high-density urban infill, it puts a real pressure on public infrastructure that is often already at capacity.

We spoke at the meeting about issues such as sewerage, where there have already been issues at that new development, which is adding already a thousand new dwellings to that site. There are issues around car parking, where again we already see increasing pressures as the strategic infill site is being fulfilled. Importantly, all of the car parking arrangements were based off eight-storey dwellings and based off just a thousand dwellings being there. There were concerns around open space. In fact, the area where we met was just about the only part of open space on the entire site and completely floods in the winter as well. There has been no talk about increased provision for open space to go along with increased dwellings on the site.

There are concerns around pressure on local schools. Glenside is zoned to Glenunga International High School. Glenunga International High School is full; it is subject to a capacity management plan. There are already residents in Glenside who are being turned away from attending Glenunga International High School—and that is before Cedar Woods and the minister build their 20-storey towers there, so where, I ask, will the children go to school?

There are also concerns around transport. This entire new strategic infill site is basically served by one bus stop and one bus. There are a lot of very valid concerns about the increased pressure this is going to place on public infrastructure that is already at capacity.

There are also concerns that are being raised about the impact it is going to have on the amenity of our local area. Twenty-storey towers are going to dwarf the heritage buildings on that site, they are going to dwarf character homes in surrounding suburbs, and importantly, and perhaps interestingly in this case, they are going to dwarf the existing eight-storey buildings on that site.

Some of the people most concerned about this proposal are those who have just bought into the Cedar Woods strategic infill site on the basis of a very different plan. Some have bought in as recently as the start of this year. They have downsized and are moving into, for example, the Bloom development there, targeted at a retirement style of living. They put their life savings in there as recently as the start of this year because they wanted to live on the plan that was sold to them. Now, after they have sold the thousand dwellings there and people have put their life savings into investing in these properties, the plan is fundamentally changing.

I think when we talk about planning we often talk about the need for certainty. Developers often raise the need for certainty in our planning system. I say if that is good for developers, which it should be, it needs to hold for the consumer as well and for my residents who have bought into the Cedar Woods development at Glenside on the basis of eight-storey buildings on that strategic infill site. I told the meeting the bad news, which is that this code amendment has been initiated. The good news is that we are going to make sure our voice is heard by the minister.