Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (16:07): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (16:07): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through all remaining stages without delay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An absolute majority is required. As we do not have an absolute majority, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (16:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill 2024 has been drafted to provide for the preservation of the Crown and Anchor Hotel at 196 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, as a live music venue. The hotel has significant importance to Adelaide for public interest reasons, and the state government has been working closely with its owner to ensure that it is retained as a live music venue into the future. In order to achieve this, though, there needs to be an ability to increase the maximum height limit of the development on the site adjacent to the hotel to ensure that the same yield can be achieved as if the hotel were not retained.

This bill achieves three purposes: it preserves the hotel so that generations to come will be able to use it as a place to congregate; it provides that the minister can prescribe in a notice other live music venues so that residential development within 60 metres must be developed with noise attenuation measures; and it significantly increases the supply of student accommodation in the Adelaide CBD, which will assist to alleviate the pressure on the private housing rental market by supporting housing diversity as set out in the Housing Roadmap.

The current planning rules specify that the site of the hotel has a maximum building height of 53 metres. Incentive policies, such as the provision of affordable housing, do enable overheight development in the area, and the development application before the State Commission Assessment Panel proposes a height of 64 metres. This bill will allow the site adjacent to the hotel to be developed to a height not exceeding 29 storeys or 101 metres.

The bill provides that the hotel cannot be demolished, its height cannot be increased through the addition of more storeys, and a change in use of the land cannot occur without the concurrence of the Minister for Planning after the minister has consulted with the community for not less than four weeks. It allows for the demolition of gutters and the parapet of the hotel that encroach on the adjacent allotment, which may occur without the concurrence of the Minister for Planning.

Noise attenuation or acoustic treatment works in relation to the hotel building will be taken to be classified by the code as deemed-to-satisfy development, and any partial demolition associated with those works does not require the concurrence of the Minister for Planning. The proposed student accommodation on the site adjacent to the hotel is not subject to referrals to state agencies or the City of Adelaide and will also be taken to be classified by the code as deemed to satisfy if it meets the following criteria—in the opinion of the State Planning Commission, the development:

through high-quality design, positively contributes to the liveability, durability and sustainability of the student accommodation and the surrounding built environment;

has a maximum building height not exceeding 101 metres;

consists of no more than 29 storeys; and

meets other criteria published by the Minister for Planning on the SA Planning Portal.

It also provides that the Minister for Planning can prescribe in a notice other live music venues within the Adelaide CBD where any future residential development within 60 metres of the venue must be developed with noise attenuation measures to reduce the potential for complaints.

The bill makes for a technical change to section 76 of the act to allow the code to be amended without the need for a formal code amendment process. Where the proposed student accommodation development meets the above criteria and is assessed to be deemed to satisfy, a statement of site suitability confirming that the necessary and appropriate remediation works in response to any site contamination have been undertaken will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued, i.e., before the building can be occupied.

Where the proposed development does not meet the additional criteria published on the SA Planning Portal, the development will be assessed on the merits against the code, but the code will be amended in such a way that student accommodation is a desirable use of the land, and a maximum building height for the site is 101 metres, or 29 storeys. The State Commission Assessment Panel, as a delegate of the commission, is the relevant authority for the purposes of giving planning consent for the development of student accommodation on the site adjacent to the hotel as well as for the purposes of the noise attenuation or acoustic treatment works in relation to the hotel building.

The Heritage Places Act 1993 does not apply to the hotel site or to the site adjacent to the hotel. It should be noted that the bill as proposed will allow development applications to be lodged in keeping with the ongoing use and maintenance of the hotel. For example, an application to convert part of the hotel's function room will be assessed against the current conventional development application against the existing planning system.

Student accommodation will need to comply with the following additional criteria that will be published on the SA Planning Portal to be considered as deemed to satisfy. In relation to primary and secondary street boundaries, there must be zero metre setbacks, there must be a clearly defined podium with a maximum height of two storeys and there must be one or more levels above the podium with a setback of 1.5 metres, and 75 per cent of the ground floor frontages must be active. The ground floor of the building must have a floor-to-ceiling height of at least 3.5 metres and any habitable areas of the building must have a ceiling height of at least 2.7 metres.

Communal open space must be provided at a minimum rate of 100 metres square for every 300 beds and it must be at least five metres wide in one direction. Communal space inside the building must be provided at a minimum rate of two metres square for every bed. There must be storage or parking for bicycles at a rate of one storage or one parking area for every six beds. Noise to bedrooms must be reduced to specified levels, and the finished floor level of the building must be at least 300 millimetres above the kerb. The criteria are considered necessary to ensure that a high-quality building is developed. If the prescribed criteria are met, the student accommodation must be approved by the State Commission Assessment Panel within 10 business days of the development application being lodged.

With regard to the potential for other live music venues to be prescribed in the notice, the requirement for noise attenuation will be the same as currently exists in the Planning and Design Code. The designation of other live music venues in the notice will allow for a more responsive and timely process to ensure that live music venues are not unduly impacted through noise complaints from new adjoining residential development.

A consequential change to section 76 of the act will ensure that the places identified in the notice can be reflected in the code without needing to undergo a lengthy code amendment process. This change will ensure that applicants are provided all assessment requirements through the online development application process where a residential development is within 60 metres of a designated venue. This will give immediate visibility to applicants or prospective developers that the noise attenuation measures apply to any potential residential development.

The proposed bill is a sign that the government is prepared to use innovative solutions to achieve outcomes that benefit both the live music scene and student accommodation industries, as well as the community more generally. I thank the house.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:18): I rise today to add my contribution to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill 2024. I do that as the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill.

At the outset, and for the benefit of those in the gallery today, I indicate that the opposition will be in no way impeding passage of this bill through the house. We do that for a range of reasons. Firstly, this bill, in terms of its passage into the house today, seems to be adding to a theme that has come out of the minister's office in relation to bills being dropped on this parliament for consideration with less than 24 hours' notice with a view that there is public urgency in passing such bills. We will have a broader discussion later, I am sure, in regard to that matter of urgency.

While we recognise and hope that the underpinning argument put forward by the minister is sincere, it certainly does not push aside the clear pattern that is well and truly emerging from the minister's office in terms of his approach to bringing significant legislation to this house, which has been to ensure that the opposition, crossbenchers in the other place and key stakeholders who are involved in this process have been provided as little time as possible to truly understand the impacts of the bill and the proposed legislation before us. That is clear, that is unequivocal and there can be no argument to any other end.

We do, at this stage, reserve our right between the houses to consider amendments and to consider exactly what will be put forward by the opposition for potential improvements to the bill. We will take into consideration the feedback provided by stakeholders to that end. In regard to our key desire for the process today, it is essentially to gain as much information from the minister as possible in regard to how we got to this point. What negotiations took place? With whom did those negotiations take place? Exactly what is being assured through this bill?

It is very difficult from the outside—where I still consider the opposition to be, given the small period of time that has been provided to us to properly understand this legislation—to know what exactly is assured through this bill. Is live music assured to continue to take place at the Crown and Anchor into the future? We know that there is going to be a two-year period where there will not be live music at the Crown and Anchor Hotel. I think we need to pull apart and truly understand exactly what the impacts will be for the building itself in regard to heritage protections. Given that the heritage act will no longer apply through this legislation, I think we truly need to understand exactly what that means for the building into the future.

It is clear that 10 additional storeys have been added to the proposal of the developer in regard to that building and also that, on the back of the changes proposed in this bill around noise attenuation, there will be a significant construction burden on future developments around the CBD in particular. It is difficult to understand how live venues in the CBD and developments around them are going to be treated differently to developments around live music venues outside the CBD. You can understand that it is confusing, I think, for everybody in South Australia to get their head around why there would be such a significant difference in how those venues are treated, simply because they fall within the periphery of the Adelaide CBD.

I recognise, at this point, the significant and passionate contributions of many in bringing about a campaign that has highlighted the deficiencies in the eyes of those who have been passionate enough to bring this forward in the planning process, but we do need to understand fully the ramifications, the unintended consequences and the possibilities that may be put forward on the back of this legislation going through today, because it has been done in a hasty manner.

I think the key things for the minister are that this process should be undertaken in good faith, particularly given the manner in which the minister has come, cap in hand, seeking to have the regular standing orders of this house put aside to proceed with the passage of this bill. As much information as possible should be provided by the government today to outline the information that they have in regard to what this bill truly is achieving and solidifying, and the potential impacts that it will have not just on the Crown and Anchor Hotel but on live music venues more broadly and for development in the CBD of Adelaide, and outside of that, into the future.

As lead speaker for the opposition, I have clearly outlined and articulated the position to this point and the approach that the opposition will be taking. I hope the minister has his full complement of advisers on hand because it will be a lengthy committee process.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (16:25): On the 18^th of this month I joined the Premier and the Save the Cranker campaign, alongside live music lovers, musicians and other supporters, to make an exciting announcement, and that was that together we had saved the Cranker.

The introduction of this special purpose legislation secures the future of the Cranker as a live music venue for generations to come. This bill achieves a number of important outcomes. It ensures the Cranker cannot be demolished, that no development can occur above the Cranker and that its current land use as a hotel capable of supporting live music cannot be changed. It is important to note that these protections are stronger protections than exist under the state heritage act 1993.

Under this bill, these conditions will only be able to be removed with the concurrence of the Minister for Planning and only after a period of four weeks of public consultation. This bill will also protect other live music venues in the CBD by requiring new neighbouring residential developments within 60 metres to install sound attenuation measures to ensure internal decibel levels are acceptable.

The bill also means the developer will abandon plans to demolish all but the facade of the Crown and Anchor Hotel. Instead, they will proceed with a 29-storey student housing development adjoining the Crown and Anchor that will deliver approximately 700 student housing beds that are urgently needed to take pressure off the private rental market. The bill also allows the development application to be assessed within 10 business days. I am advised that as a part of this the developer will also invest funds in ensuring the appropriate noise attenuation works will be made at the rear of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

I want to acknowledge people involved in the Crown and Anchor campaign, some of whom are in the gallery today. In particular, Evan, Naz, Grace, Patrick, Dan, Chrissy, Jessica and the many other faces of the Save the Cranker campaign group. You are truly an impressive group of South Australians. I admire your passion, your commitment and your organisation. It is an understatement to say you threw everything at this campaign, and I hope you enjoyed a beer or two or three since the rally.

Thank you to every single local who contacted me to share their views, who put in a submission or attended a rally. I want to share with you some of the feedback that I received because it speaks to how important this venue is to my community and to the live music scene. An Adelaide resident said:

…this hotel provides work for local and touring musicians, and music workers, who are mostly sharing original music. It is very well-loved venue by musicians and music lovers alike and holds thousands of stories in multiple through-lines of our city's history.

A Prospect resident said:

When attending the Adelaide Fringe and other events in the city recently, I noticed the eclectic mix of people drinking and chatting outside The Cranker as I walked past. Whenever I drive or walk by there always seems to be a buzz. It contributes to the ambience of our beloved city…The Cranker is exactly what is needed to make the city an interesting lively place to visit and live.

A North Adelaide resident said:

While it has been a while since I have visited The Cranker, I regularly drop my 21 year old daughter off on a Wednesday to socialise with her friends and listen to live music. My youth in the 80's and 90's was spent going to venues, such as The Cranker, Tivoli, Adelaide Uni bar and Austral, Limbos, Le Rox and Cargo Club…

I want my daughter and future generations to be able to continue to have these experiences. As I have been following the Save the Cranker campaign on Facebook I have noticed that this venue in particular is a place that evokes a sense of belonging. The patrons including overseas students, new arrivals and other minority groups, have voiced that it is a place that is inclusive and welcoming, where they can go on their own for a drink and know that they will find someone to chat to. We need The Cranker, in our city if we are to stop our young people from becoming disenfranchised from the community.

This is an example of the community, of government and of the private sector working together on a win-win-win outcome. It is a win for the culture and heritage of our CBD, a win for live music, a win for student housing we desperately need to take the pressure off the private rental market, and it is a win for places that create community. Long live the Cranker. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:30): I rise perhaps to foreshadow some of the topics of interest for the committee stage. At the outset, I think it is important to make the observation that this is a piece of legislation that is unusually bespoke. I say 'unusually' in that ordinarily and generally speaking if there is a problem in the planning system, if there is an aspect of the planning process that is preventing a good outcome from occurring, then the job of government is to go about addressing that and to do so in principle with the view to general application. There is nothing that is preventing precisely that from occurring.

What we have seen here is a mixture therefore of a general overlay of some sort, we have got the city mile designated for the purposes of this and what might be future applications for other venues, but we have really otherwise got a bill that is looking much more like the sort of list of conditions that might follow the outcome of an individual planning decision that affects a single property. There are acts on the books, of course, dating back over the 150 years that are special purpose pieces of legislation, but it is a rare event and this appears to be one such rare event. I hear the minister and the member for Adelaide. It is important that the member for Adelaide is central to the debate as this is very much at the centre of the member for Adelaide's electorate.

I think before we get too excited about describing the outcome of all this as some sort of miracle that leads to the best of all outcomes for everybody who has been dedicated to saving and enhancing and allowing the building and all good things, we should bear in mind that time will tell. What is clear on the face of this bill is that there are a number of things that have been dealt with as part of what has been described as this deal. First of all, heritage protection and therefore the capacity to apply in the normal way and to enjoy protections in the usual way in relation to heritage is gone. Secondly, we know as the result of this bill proceeding and the development occurring that there will be two years at least—two years has been foreshadowed—during which there will not be any live music or, indeed, any activity going on at the Crown and Anchor Hotel. That is the second point.

So I encourage, if it is still happening on 6 September, those who had in mind getting down to see The Rowdy Neighbours to take that chance. I note it is the Cranker's birthday on 7 September and to the extent that that is going ahead as normal that will be a significant event indeed.

I am concerned as I stand here that after two years of closure and after the completion of the proposed development there is no guarantee that there will be the continuation of life and business as we have known it for decades, but that remains to be seen. What we know, as part of this deal, thirdly, is that there will be now a quite considerably larger building built on the site—10 more storeys, so a 29 storey building, as I understand it. That, on its own, is a tremendous thing. There is a tremendous amount of investment involved. From all indications, the owner and developer is an investor of the highest repute and is keen to get on with investing in providing necessary accommodation for people in the CBD, and that is a tremendous outcome.

It is a very significant building over the Cranker nonetheless. It might be that The Rowdy Neighbours is an apt choice for what might be one of the last few performances before all of the works commence. But, fourthly, as the result of the bill passing, we are going to see the advent of a cost burden that will be applied to construction citywide wherever there are circumstances of a like designation—a live music venue and noise attenuation requirements. At least those four matters ought be borne very much in mind.

We might say there are silver linings in all directions. We are going to see a development. Those who prioritise the heritage side will say, 'Well, that's a loss of heritage, but on the other side, we are not seeing a demolition of the building altogether. Alright, there might be something saved there.' I would perhaps rate my primary concern in terms of the winners and losers in all of this, as we stand here, frankly, as the thing that drove the protests in the first place—the threat to the loss of live music.

It will be really interesting to see in a couple of years' time want the Cranker looks like and what live music possibilities are there, but we will all have to wait and see. I have been interested to hear just in terms of remarks in the media from the lessee. I know him. I will be interested to hear from the minister about what arrangements are in place to compensate the lessee for this period of development time ahead.

So those are the highlight concerns. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity for some elucidation at the committee stage, at least from my point of view. Really, the overriding sentiment is that, if, as has been lauded by this government in recent weeks, there is the capacity to come shining through with a solution to a difficult problem, then it would be much to be preferred if the problem that has been presented by the Crown and Anchor Hotel development application could be answered by an approach, by a change. We have seen all sorts of development plan changes in recent times. That has more to do with the general application that can provide transparency for those moving forward into the future and less about a bespoke, single-site, piecemeal approach. The last thing I think we want to see is a new bill for multiple development proposals, whether they be in the city or elsewhere.

Perhaps finally, in terms of my contribution, I just indicate that I cannot claim to be a significant or decades-long patron of the Cranker. The Bridgeway Hotel is more in my memory from the early days. I certainly hope that live music, whether it be in the city or elsewhere in the state, has a healthy future. I think the proof will be in the course of the next years ahead as far as this particular development and this site. I think there will be some more to explore in the course of the committee stage.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (16:40): I rise to support this bill. Following on from the theme at the end of the member for Heysen's speech, I really want to express how important we see that music is in creating an exciting and vibrant city and state of South Australia. The Crown and Anchor is one such venue that plays a really important role in the South Australian live music ecosystem and does contribute to the vibrancy of the East End precinct.

The Cranker, along with venues such as the Exeter, provides training ground for our young South Australian musicians. It provides them with the opportunity to hone their skills and gets them ready to play on bigger stages and in front of larger audiences. Had we lost the Cranker, it would have had real-world impacts on our live music ecosystem. All of these venues play a really important part in the live music ecosystem and being able to save the Cranker is a really important part of that. It would have taken opportunities away from our local young musicians and hampered their career development.

The Malinauskas government was elected on a strong promise to support the South Australian live music industry through the See It LIVE election commitment. Our government's intervention to protect the Cranker is just one example of our commitment to live music in our city and our state. Since being elected, our See It LIVE package has provided 200 venue upgrade grants totalling $1 million, funding for 130 events through 2022 and 2023. We provided mental health support for South Australian musicians and music businesses coming out of COVID with a grant of $250,000 to the national music not-for-profit association Support Act.

We returned live music to the Royal Show after 20 years and that provided a platform for almost 500 South Australian artists to perform to some fairly substantial audiences at the first Royal Show post COVID. We have provided 2,700 vouchers to local clubs, pubs and small bars around the state to host more live music.

We have gone further than our original election commitment: we had two new initiatives that were launched late last year, 2023, through the See It LIVE program to support live music venues. That includes an $850,000 See It LIVE music activation fund and the $50,000 Fringe It LIVE program. Eligible venues were able to apply for grants of up to $60,000 to host live music, with a focus on original content to attract patrons and create employment opportunities for local musicians, for lighting and sound techs and other such technical positions as well.

Through a collaboration between the Music Development Office, which sits in Arts SA, and my Office for Small and Family Business, the recipients of these grants also received free business advisory services to support the sector's long-term sustainability, and that is really important in the live music sector.

As part of the business advisory services, the recipients were able to access free workshops on business fundamentals, which were tailored to live music venues, one-on-one consultation to assess their individual business needs, and an opportunity to secure a business mentor. There were 20 successful venues: 13 in the CBD, five in metropolitan Adelaide and two regional venues as well.

These grants are on top of the $50,000 Fringe It LIVE program, which encouraged venues otherwise not part of the Fringe to host live music during the Adelaide Fringe, opening themselves up to new audiences. Our live music venues play a vital role in supporting the careers of emerging artists and contribute significantly to the cultural life of our state, which is reflected through our designation as Australia's only UNESCO City of Music. As members will be aware, I am in the midst of developing a new arts, culture and creative industries policy for our state. That policy will consider all art forms and will closely consider music and how it influences all aspects of our culture.

At the start of this month, Adelaide hosted the Australian Independent Record Association Awards at the Queens Theatre. This is a wonderful event that showcases Australia's best independent musicians. Winners this year included Dan Sultan, Josh Pyke, Private Function and Don Spencer OAM, who received the 2024 Outstanding Achievement Award for his commitment to children's music through the Australian Children's Music Foundation. On that night, Don received a standing ovation and filled the room with joy as he began to sing the Playschool theme song.

Importantly, Maria Amato, who is the Chief Executive of the Australian Independent Record Association, confirmed that the awards would continue to be held in Adelaide for the next two years and, very excitingly, that Adelaide will be the exclusive home of the American Association of Independent Music's Indie Week Australian Edition. This is the first ever Indie Week conference held outside of New York, which is an incredible opportunity for Adelaide.

It will bring the world's largest music market to Adelaide, provide valuable opportunities for our local artists and music businesses, and enable them to connect and develop relationships in what is an important export market. The Indie Week Australian Edition, in partnership with AIR's Indie-Con Australia conference and the AIR awards, reinforces our designation as a UNESCO City of Music and the independent music capital of Australia.

As you can see from my short summary, we are a government that has a deep interest in and passion for supporting live music, which is why we took the step we did, thanks to the Minister for Housing, to take action to save the Cranker. I look forward to seeing many future generations of local musicians stepping up on a national stage or an international stage having honed their craft at venues like the Cranker.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:46): I am really pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill. I really thank the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Arts for their words and their work towards this important piece of legislation. I am really pleased to rise in support of the bill, and in support of live music, the much-loved Cranker and how our community and this government has secured and helped to advance its future, alongside many passionate community members.

My husband, our sons and I love live music. Seeing local emerging bands, those we have loved for years, and occasionally those who everybody knows, brings my husband and I great joy, connection and sometimes some very rare but much-needed time together.

After a very busy week and weekend, late last Sunday afternoon we headed out at about 4.30pm to the Gov to see The Stems and to buy their new release vinyl. The Stems are a band that we have loved for many, many years. They were absolutely as good as ever. As well as seeing them, we absolutely loved the concept of the late afternoon gig. We loved that we were home by 7pm and did reflect that things have changed a lot for us. Decades ago, at 7pm we would have still been a couple of hours away from even contemplating and getting ready to leave the house.

Amongst my husband's friends is a small group who went to high school together. They bonded at that time by starting to go and see bands in those years at the Tiv, the Exeter, Flinders Uni, Adelaide Uni, Le Rox and the Cranker, amongst other venues. That same group of friends catches up to this day by still regularly going to see bands at many of those same venues. Live music and venues provide such an important environment to connect, to belong, to be moved and uplifted, and to focus on something positive with the people you love.

I frequented some of those venues, too, but it was also the Seacliff, the Holdfast and our surf clubs where I saw the likes of The Mark of Cain, the Numbskulls and others.

S.E. Andrews: The Numbskulls?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Absolutely. One of the venues that has remained a constant, so-loved place to get together to see live music is the Cranker. C.J. Ramone, the Hard-Ons, Lime Spiders, the Vains, Hey Harriet, Oscar the Wild and Green Circles are all bands that have entertained a crowd at the Cranker. The Cranker is also one of the much-loved venues where Clarity Records' Footy Horvath has really generously facilitated the incredible Day of Clarity, which absolutely supports so many emerging artists.

The Cranker represents so much more than the very happy memories of those of us who have been there over the years. It is also the place where the musicians of the future—often the stars of the future—are playing now, and often where they have made their first foray as a band. There are young people out there right now in suburban garages and school halls, harbouring dreams of spending their life playing music, and they need places to play. I am proud that our government wants to support them as the Minister for Arts spoke about, including through our See It LIVE music voucher program and our support for the excellent work of mental health organisation, Support Act.

Adelaide is proudly a UNESCO City of Music. Living up to this means that we need to support the entire ecosystem of live music. That ecosystem includes emerging artists, bands making a comeback or exploring a new genre, those who are hitting the big time and those who are already there. These bands need fans—places where people who have heard them many times, and those who are hearing them for the first time can immerse themselves in their tunes.

The Cranker is central to our ecosystem. It has been a core part of the fabric of our city for almost 150 years and every week it still hosts around 25 to 30 bands. We want its place—all that it provides for bands and their fans—in the heart of the East End of our city in that ecosystem to continue long into the future. This bill secures that future and I am really proud that our government has worked so hard alongside the community toward that future: that through the bill we preserve the hotel in its current external form with only minor caveats and retain its current land use as a hotel capable of supporting live music.

The bill will also rightly protect other live music venues in the CBD by requiring new neighbouring residential developments within 60 metres to install sound attenuation measures to ensure internal decibel levels are acceptable. The bill also provides for a deemed-to-satisfy development assessment process for the student accommodation development adjacent to the hotel site. I am so proud and so glad that our government has helped to secure a step forward that gives us the best of both worlds: much-needed student accommodation and the preservation of live music at the Cranker. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:53): I rise to very enthusiastically support this bill. The East End of Adelaide is a super fun place to be. There is food, music, pubs, little lanes and shops. You can spend the day or night there for fun and lots of people are choosing to live there too, so it is easy to see why a developer would want to build student accommodation to take advantage of all the best of what Adelaide has to offer for international students. Those young people want to have an amazing educational experience in our great city, and developers want to build somewhere that is attractive to international students, while maximising their investment.

What makes the East End and all heritage precincts the world over attractive to developers is the borrowed value that is intrinsic to places where heritage has been retained, where light has allowed street trees to flourish, providing places for people to gather outside and enjoy each other's company with great food, drink and entertainment. In the East End, you can do shopping, catch a movie, eat dinner, see live music and have a drink, all without having to get in a car in between. These are the same factors that make the French Quarter, East Village and West End attractive places to be in New Orleans, New York and London.

It has been said before, and I am sure it will be said again, that the Crown and Anchor is the beating heart of the East End, and I am so happy that this bill preserves the hotel so that generations to come will be able to use it as a place to come together. Adelaide, like other music cities, has a rich history that reflects Adelaideans' deep commitment to our vibrant and world-class music scene. We are, and always have been, a centre for musical performance and education.

This is reflected across our arts and cultural festivals, including the Fringe and WOMADelaide; our musical institutions, such as the Elder Conservatorium of Music; and our diverse live music scene. I am proud this bill will protect live music venues in the CBD, like the iconic Exeter, Metro, Jade and Grace Emily, by requiring new neighbouring residential developments within 60 metres to install sound attenuation measures to ensure internal decibel levels are acceptable.

Adelaide's UNESCO City of Music status was granted as a result of our city's commitment to supporting and promoting all musical genres at all levels. The Cranker plays an important part in fostering up-and-coming local musicians and artists and has continually shaped our city's cultural identity through the nurturing and promotion of local acts. As one of the city's oldest pubs and longstanding live music venues, the Crown and Anchor serves as a crucial element in what makes our city relevant on the national and international scene, attracting musicians and patrons from all over Australia and the world.

I have had a number of great nights at the Cranker, playing pool very badly and seeing bands like Diplomat, Reverses, Night Rites, The Burning Sea, Grenadiers, Rat Catcher and Screamfeeder. Yes, I shamelessly included my partner's bands in that list—love you!

The Cranker is not only an important example of our built heritage: it has an impressively long history as a gathering place for the local community, allowing for social interaction and cultural exchange literally across the centuries. On 19 January 1892, Mr John McPherson, who was running to represent East Adelaide, spoke to punters at the hotel. McPherson was the founding secretary of the South Australian Labor Party, and this was the first time the party had contested an election and won a seat in the house.

There is no doubt the Cranker is deeply connected to the history of our city since it was first licensed in 1853. Generations of South Australians are connected to this building and are invested in preserving it for the future. The loss of this beloved cultural institution would have contributed to the homogenisation of both the built form of our city and our evolving cultural and musical heritage. I cannot begin to describe how pleased I am about the historic agreement reached between our state government, the private sector and the Save the Cranker campaigners that will ensure the Cranker is preserved.

Huge congratulations to Evan, Patrick and the Cranker committee on their campaign and to all those across Adelaide who came out in force to show their support for one of our most iconic venues, including many people in my electorate who made contact with me and my office. Thank you to the Premier and the minister for their dedication to getting a good result. When I am driving my daughter home from gigs at the Cranker 11 years from now—after enjoying the gigs from the very back of the room to avoid embarrassing her—I will think of you and be grateful. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (16:58): I will take this opportunity to speak about the bill. Enough has been said, I think, about the minister's rush and that being his style. I think he is developing the nickname 'the seagull'. A seagull comes to your picnic, flies around, shits everywhere and then leaves.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Unley, it is unparliamentary to compare another member to an animal.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I withdraw, sir, and I will just be careful next time I have a picnic. I think there are missed opportunities, from what I can see so far looking at this bill, because it is focused on just really one project. When you walk through the streets of Melbourne—there has been enormous development in the last 10 years in Melbourne—you will see heritage building after heritage building preserved with a 150-metre skyscraper sitting behind it, and that building is being used. We are seeing curated pathways linking the heritage and new buildings. I think this is short-sighted because it is missing an opportunity for a much broader review to preserve heritage in Adelaide and to designate areas for the creative industries.

I experienced another example when I visited Auckland a number of years ago. There was a company that contracted abandoned building sites that had been cleared, and those sites on a particular night were alive with people buying food at markets and musicians playing. I think it is not just musicians in heavy metal bands or pub bands that contribute to the experiences that we all enjoy in music; it could be a solo guitarist, it could be somebody playing the flute, or a couple, one singing, one dancing. Consequently, I think this does not do anything to support those in the creative industries that are very much in that sector.

When I was the minister responsible for the music industry, we were very focused on taking an organic process that encouraged all creative industries to express themselves and have opportunities. It might surprise some of you that I was a young musician, but the advice that my parents gave me was to get a real job before I decided to take that any further. I took that advice and, obviously, ended up in the furniture industry. However, these days, the creative industries is a real job, so consequently there is a big opportunity to do this. There are programs and events that we see in other parts of the world.

I visited a pub in London, where every staff member who worked behind the bar was a singer. Basically, somebody would pour you a couple of pints, a song would come on, and the person who poured the pints would take off their apron, grab a microphone and be on the table singing. I thought it was a great way of encouraging and supporting young musicians who want to be creative as part of their job. We identified a couple of pubs that were prepared to give it a go in South Australia but, unfortunately, time ran out, with the 2022 election, in order to pursue that model of entertainment and opportunity for creatives in Adelaide.

I know there are some people in Parkside who are very concerned, when looking at this bill, about a development that SCAP did not allow through, which failed on 10 different performance outcomes, some of them very severe. It is a brand-new concept, rent coming from interstate. The process itself is managed by a former CEU official, and he is in the business of approaching unions about their assets and seeing how they can turn them into money making operations. The Australian Education Union, which owns the building in Parkside in partnership with this particular person, put forward a monstrosity of a building that has virtually no parking and is very heavy on small, single bedroom apartments with borrowed light. It is over the height capacity limitations, over the ground coverage, and it does not pass the overshadowing; it is on the northern side of the buildings that it shadows.

It is a very prominent overshadowing on those buildings, particularly in the wintertime when the shadow is long, and it has failed on all of those matters. That is now before the courts. The developers are appealing the SCAP decision. The residents had a win; for the first time, residents were able to be represented at that appeal. They tested the act and they were able to be represented at that appeal.

My concern is that with such a specific amendment to the act that we have here—the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of the Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill—what is to stop this government from bringing another bill into the parliament, such as a planning, development and infrastructure (build-to-rent) amendment bill, that is just as specific for particular properties that they may want to see breach long-planned and long-consulted height, density and parking limits?

This is the concern that my residents in Unley have. I think this particular attempt by the Australian Education Union to make some money is an example of where people would be very frightened after seeing that the government has the capacity to override what was sold by John Rau at the time as removing the politics out of planning and getting the best possible results for the community. I would be seeking assurances from the minister that we are not going to see a similar bill come to this parliament if the AEU fails in its appeal on the SCAP decision to go ahead with the overcapacity, high-density development on Greenhill Road at Parkside.

The other point I think I would like to raise—and I might also ask some questions about this in the committee process—is that as part of providing more homes quickly, we have heard calls for looking at repurposing commercial buildings. We know that vacancy levels are at about 20 per cent at the moment, a historically high level in the city. We know that there have been changes in work practices: for example, working from home, more businesses conducting themselves from the suburbs, people deciding that they do not actually need to rent an office if they are going to practice in a particular profession and they can actually set up an office at home, or they might work in a small innovation centre where they are working with other independent people. Of course, more people do tend to choose to work for themselves or work under contract rather than work for big firms that may have been in those office buildings in Adelaide that are empty.

I have heard the minister himself say that it is the high-quality office accommodation that is in demand and the low-quality is not being used or needs to be refurbished, and I did hear him say that it was not viable to refurbish those into accommodation. I would be very interested to know any future plans that the government might have when student housing is no longer in the demand that it is in here now—whether that is in 10 years' time, 20 years' time or 30 years' time—because the university system may have changed or people may prefer country resort-type university education. I do not know what will happen in 20 or 30 years' time. How easy will it be to repurpose these homes so they can cater for retirement living, aged care or other forms of residential living?

I think it is important that anything that is built for a specific industry in South Australia is in a fully adaptable design so that interior walls can be moved and they can still provide the fire breaks that are required with very minimal expense. With what we know about technology and how smart architects have become in their design, there should be an opportunity to work with an organisation like this to say, 'Let's do something really special. Let's not just save this historic building. Let's make a change for the long term in the City of Adelaide.'

Compare the way historic buildings are treated in Adelaide with Melbourne. People think of Melbourne as being just a monstrosity of buildings, but when you are on the street it is very pleasant to see that there is so much heritage still at that level. Obviously, as you are driving in from the West Gate Bridge it almost looks like it is our own New York because it is so filled with skyscrapers and tall buildings. However, when you are on the footpath there are lovely places to walk and lovely places to eat. It is a very walkable city. There is plenty of sun coming in on the streets because of the placement of these tall buildings and the fact that they work with those key buildings, like the Cranker, for a design to happen.

A disappointing thing about this is that, if it were not for the Cranker being a live music venue, it would have been bulldozed under this government. That is what would have happened to it, and that would have been a shame. I am pleased that the Cranker is being saved. I am concerned about how a business can survive two years without being in business and then just snap its fingers in two years' time when the building becomes available again to ramp up the live music and entertainment. I am not sure how easy that will be. I do not think it will be easy at all, because we know about the music industry and those pubs that have been supporters of the music industry.

I congratulate the Australian Hotels Association, which I understand is the biggest employer of musicians in the state. However, from a standing start at the end of COVID restrictions and getting people back out again, it has not been as easy as people would have hoped it would be. People have changed their entertainment practices since COVID, and what they were doing before COVID is not necessarily what they are doing after COVID.

It is much bigger than a physical place in order to reboot the live music industry in South Australia. It needs considered planning over a broad range of areas, some of which I have covered today in my contribution, like broadening the live music industry beyond the type of bands that we have all grown to love over the years and looking at those who are participating in other areas of live music performance and live performance full stop in Adelaide.

We know that people are now choosing to spend a bigger chunk of their disposable income on enjoying services. In my day, when I was a younger person, as well as my parents and so forth, people would save up for the lounge suite, the bedroom suite and other items that you could physically touch and use. Thanks to places like Ikea and so forth, in many instances a piece of furniture is cheaper than a night out. Consequently, people are spending money on entertainment and enjoying life, because we all know we only have one of those and it can be very short. People's priorities have changed and more and more the growth in the economy is coming from the service industry, and the creative industry is very much a part of the service industry.

I would have liked to have seen a bill brought here—it may have taken a week or two longer to do that—that was broader than just one location for the music industry, because doing this by location, location, location, one at a time, does two things: it does not really deliver certainty and, secondly, it will concern people like those who are living in the vicinity of the Australian Education Union monstrosity proposal on Greenhill Road at Parkside, thinking that if the government is prepared to pull out a single development with a justification, then what is to stop them from justifying that they want to see more build-to-rent developments in the inner suburbs, and so we are going to actually have a special bill in parliament to achieve that for this particular site as well

That is something that will concern my constituents, and I am sure it will concern people living in the seat of Dunstan, people living in the seat of Bragg, and other areas that have really more than their fair share of urban consolidation than other parts of Adelaide, that are the same distance from town and, in many instances, have even better transport links through trains and so forth.

I go back to the whole justification for the rebuilding of the planning act by John Rau and the previous Labor government, and it was so that people knew what to expect when they bought a home. If they bought near Unley Road, for example, if their back fence was shared with a car park of a shop on Unley Road, then they would know that between basically Mary Street and Park Street you could have a five-storey building on your boundary. The community accepted that because they were consulted over a long period of time and the trade-off there, of course, was that there was more consideration for streetscape and character further in from those side streets, and there were designated heritage zones and character zones in Unley.

So the government was able to achieve the ability to have more housing, more choice of housing, and everybody knew where they stood. With this bill, and if more like this come through this place, people do not know what is going on, and I think that is the concern. And the minister has still not justified the rush and why it is that the opposition—even the Labor Party backbench did not know about this until the announcement was made. Why the rush for this to run through the parliament as quickly as it is? It is such a significant bill, not just for this particular development but for future options for the government when it comes to development.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (17:18): I might begin by seeking leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause sets out the short title.

Part 2—Amendment of Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016

2—Amendment of section 76—Minor or operational amendments

Currently, under section 76 of the Act the Minister may amend a designated instrument (which is defined in the Act) in order to provide consistency between the designated instrument and the regulations. This clause amends section 76 so that such amendments may be made for consistency with the Act or a prescribed Act, or the regulations or any other instrument made under the Act.

3—Amendment of section 127—Conditions

This clause amends section 127 of the Act so that a relevant authority must, in granting development authorisation for a relevant residential development within 60 m of a boundary of a designated live music venue (being a venue or place within the designated live music venue area that is designated by the Minister in the Minister's noise attenuation requirements), impose a condition that the development include noise attenuation measures in accordance with the Minister's noise attenuation requirements.

Certain definitions are inserted.

4—Insertion of Part 10 Division 2A

This clause inserts Division 2A into Part 10 of the Act:

Division 2A—Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel as live music venue and development of surrounding land

135A—Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel as live music venue and development of surrounding land

The concurrence of the Minister is required before granting development authorisation for a proposed development involving:

the whole or partial demolition of the Crown and Anchor Hotel building; or

development involving the addition of 1 or more storeys above the Crown and Anchor Hotel building; or

a change in the use of the Crown and Anchor Hotel land.

Public consultation is required before a concurrence of the Minister may be given.

Demolition of certain parts of the Crown and Anchor Hotel building does not require concurrence.

Provision is made in relation to development authorisation of noise attenuation or acoustic treatment in respect of the Crown and Anchor Hotel building.

The Heritage Places Act 1993 does not apply in relation to any place on the Crown and Anchor Hotel land and any State Heritage Place on that land is taken to cease being such a place and to be removed from the South Australian Heritage Register.

Provision is also made to facilitate significant student accommodation development on the surrounding land of the Crown and Anchor Hotel land. The Minister is authorised to publish the Minister's section 135A criteria for the purposes of such development.

5—Insertion of Schedule 4A

This clause inserts Schedule 4A into the Act:

Schedule 4A—Designated live music venue area

This Schedule sets out a map that identifies the designated live music venue area for the purposes of section 127 of the Act.

I thank all the speakers on the government side in particular for their really passionate contributions about live music and about people's passion for the Cranker hotel. I thank the opposition for their constructive criticisms and for their help in passing this bill through the house. I will endeavour, when we no doubt go into committee, to answer some of those questions. I feel I know all of you a bit better too. I did not know that the member for Unley was once in a band. It is always good to know about people.

I guess I have been thinking about my own adventures at the Cranker. In my youth, with the member for Elizabeth, with you, Deputy Speaker, I think on more than one occasion I might have gone to the Austral, the Exeter, the Cranker, the Producers or the Tivoli. There were a lot of pubs down in the East End in my day playing music, and it was because the East End was at a particular point of its transition from, really, a produce market—the end of its days as a functioning market—and towards its time as a really lively and vibrant area.

Part of that was about urban renewal. Urban renewal has a life to it. It has its own adolescence, its middle life and then areas go into a particular pathway. You see that in cities. You see that around the place. It is the path of the life and regeneration of cities. I think no set of planning laws or heritage laws can create the sort of urban grittiness, the urban life that I saw in my youth. It is different. I think my era at the Cranker is different to some of the younger members. It is probably very much different to some of the people who go there today.

I did take the opportunity midway through this debate to go and drive past the Cranker at about 11.30 at night. I do not go out that late. I was not game to go in there and have a rum as Minister for Planning, because I thought I might get an earful, but it was livelier than I remember it in my day. In my day, it was a bit touch and go about how many people would be there on a Friday or Saturday night.

So it is obviously well used. It is well loved. Its heritage value: it is worthwhile members going and having a look at the original built form of the Cranker. It was very different in its colonial architecture than it is today. There were some pretty significant changes to its facade. The balcony was not there when it was first constructed. The windows were different. The doorway was different. It actually had quite a beautiful crown and anchor parapet out the front of it.

The Cranker itself has had a long and storied history right the way through its time. It has been very good to hear everybody's stories about the Cranker. I endeavour to constructively engage with the opposition about this bill. I would say this is a unique bill. It is unique to particular circumstances and, as such, it should be treated as such. Thanks once again. With that, I will close debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: My first question to the minister is in regard to a timeline, in particular when the minister himself first had any interaction with the organisers of the Save the Cranker campaign, and also when the Premier first met with the Save the Cranker campaign organisers, to understand the genesis of where this bill was brokered from. Can the minister please provide an indication to the committee of when the first meeting occurred with the Save the Cranker campaign organisers and when the decision was made by the government to intervene in the planning process and produce the bill that we see before us today?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Before I call the minister, I point out to members that this is not an estimates committee so members do need to stand when they make contributions.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am not sure quite how this goes to the title of the bill, clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): For the information of all members, there is a general understanding that general questions may be asked on this particular clause.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I did not meet with the Save the Cranker group; at least not to my memory. I think I might have had representations from them, and I am happy to take that question on notice. I certainly interacted with them on ABC radio. There was sort of a debate on ABC radio. I went to two meetings, from memory, with the developer, in this case Wee Hur, and that was with the Premier. At those meetings basically what was sought was this unique approach.

There was quite a bit of examination about whether or not the existing planning system and heritage act could accommodate the sort of outcome in the timeframe necessary. It was decided that the Planning Code and the heritage act could not probably arrive at the outcome we needed in the timeframe we needed, so that is when we decided to go down the pathway of the specific act.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In relation to the bill itself, are you able to advise where the height came from? Why the 101? Was that a conversation that was either demanded from the developers or was it offered by the government?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Principally the height in this case is to accommodate the same amount of yield on a more contained site. The reason why preserving the hotel in its form as a hotel is important is that if you build above a hotel—which you can do—as I understand it, and I am not an architect or an engineer, you have to drive some pretty big structural pillars behind the hotel's facade, so you end up with facadism, which I think the honourable member was referring to in some of his previous contribution.

In order to prevent the facade being retained but not the actual hotel's form as a live music venue, in order to get the hotel preserved and the same amount of yield in terms of student accommodation, that is why the height. So, if you like, you are trading the preservation of the hotel with an increase in height. The original proposal had 613 rooms and 708 beds and the new proposal has 758 rooms and 684 beds, so slightly different numbers but basically the same yield in terms of student accommodation.

Quite clearly, the government wanted to achieve two objectives here: one objective is to save the Cranker and the second objective is we want student accommodation in the city. It is important for the city's growth, it is important for the university sector and it is important, frankly, that we have a solution that preserves that outcome, because it is important to investor confidence.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is there a contingency? Like you, I suspect, minister, I am not an engineer. I imagine that something that has gone to an extra 10 storeys high would have substantially larger foundations and there would be a lot more crane activity. We saw how things fell off the building next door and affected Parliament House when that building was being built. Is there a contingency if something happens and the Crown and Anchor is destroyed beyond repair because of that mishap with the construction of the building next door?

While you are thinking about that, you might also be able to answer what the process is for dilapidation reports for those people who live nearby with such large foundations going in. Will they have to organise and buy their own dilapidation reports so that they have a report on the condition of their homes before the build so they can then sue the builder for the damage that has happened to their homes, or will the builder fund those? Is there a fund for those people next door?

One of the things that has certainly been raised with me during developments that are this much bigger than the surrounding buildings in established areas—we saw the hotel in the west end that had to close because of the work that was going on affecting that business—is that the sheer vibration and other activities can cause damage to buildings that could be five, 10, 15 metres away. The question I am asking is: what is the expectation of the government for those who are immediately affected—whether they have a business premises or whether they have a residential premises—regarding damage that is caused, which is inevitable, through the construction of such a large project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This bill does not change the normal circumstances in which construction occurs and these matters are dealt with. The matters you refer to across the board are civil matters. People quite often, in anticipation of construction next door to them, get building reports and the like. That can often be a prudent thing for individuals to do—a stitch in time saves nine and all of that.

As I understand it, there are no adjacent residential developments. There might well be business developments. But I do not anticipate that some of the hypotheticals that you raise will occur, and if they do they will be handled through the normal course of civil law as opposed to this bill.

The matters that are talked about in this bill are in order to do the noise attenuation work on the hotel. There is an allowance for the developer to change the back of the hotel. In any event, quite a bit of work will have to be done on the Crown and Anchor to do that noise attenuation work.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is it fair that people who are minding their own business in their own buildings must spend money to protect their interests because there is a development happening next door?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is the system that exists—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have asked is it fair.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is the system that exists for everybody in this state, and it has been that way across governments. The member asks whether it is fair. What I would say is if you have development going on next door to you, you know you have civil rights in that regard. It is always prudent, I think, to get a building report if you are concerned about it. We found that last year there were about 35,000 different planning applications in the system, and I think there are about 4,000 or so so far this year. There is an enormous amount of construction activity across the state that is going on at any one time. The planning system's job is to approve development, and there are other areas of the law that deal with the issues that the member raises.

Mr COWDREY: I am interested in having a response from the minister around why the government has been so secretive about sharing the bill with other parliamentarians and industry stakeholders to this point. Can the minister please provide information to the committee about when—to help aid this process—the Save the Cranker campaign representatives were provided a copy of the bill and when the developer was provided a copy of the bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would have to take that on notice, member for Colton. In terms of briefings to the crossbench and the opposition, obviously I would have preferred to brief the opposition as early as possible. It is sometimes the case with our respective party rooms that that becomes an issue, but this is a unique bill. In some of the debate before there was some pointed criticism of my office. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with two unique bills in a row: the AUKUS bill, which was a unique bill, and this bill as well, which is a unique bill. It is a well-constructed bill that aims to achieve a good outcome and I am confident that the parliament, once it examines all of its content, will find that it is elegantly crafted.

Mr COWDREY: I just have a supplementary in regard to the drafting of the bill. At whose direction was the bill drafted? Was it at the Premier's direction, at your direction, or those at Planning and Land Use Services? At whose direction was the bill drafted?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: What I would say is that through the course of our discussions with the developer, and through the course of public advocacy that was occurring with the Save the Cranker campaign, we basically knew that we wanted to save the Cranker because it was an important issue, and we wanted to preserve, as I said before, the student accommodation.

If we had an unlimited amount of time, I think we could have done that through a code amendment, we could have done that through appropriate interactions with the heritage act, we could have gone through a very long process and achieved that goal. The difficulty is that, through that process, we would have greatly affected the timelines for the provision of the student accommodation, and we would have probably damaged investor confidence.

The decision to craft the bill was to achieve our outcomes, and that was a government decision. It was generated by the government, and the form of the legislation was of course. It was a government decision. It was a decision of the government to craft the bill, and of course we took advice from Planning and Land Use Services and obviously parliamentary counsel to do it.

Mr COWDREY: A final question: will the minister rule out ever bringing a bill to this place again that subverts the planning process?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The minister may choose to answer that question.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is never good to deal with hypotheticals. The opposition love to do hypotheticals. I do not think that is useful. This does not subvert the planning system or the heritage system. This is a bill that utilises all of the mechanisms—the State Commission Assessment Panel is in here, all of the mechanisms derived out of the planning system.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The outcome in protecting the hotel preserves the heritage system. What this does do, though, is compress time frames and give us a very certain result for both the Crown and Anchor and the student accommodation and achieves important goals in that respect.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Unley, you have already had three contributions on this clause. Someone else?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If I can make a request—or a point of order, however you would like to read it—the opposition only got this bill yesterday. I wonder whether the minister is happy to take questions that might not necessarily be relevant to the clause yet relevant to the bill because we have not had the time we would normally have to examine the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Unley, I have already ruled, if you were listening earlier, that there is no reason why you cannot ask general questions at clause 1, so there is no requirement for you to raise that. Does anyone else wish to make a contribution?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You are not allowing me to have any more questions. You are being strict about three questions, but you do have the ability to be flexible. The parliament has been flexible today in supporting the government bringing this forward. We have not had the luxury of the laying on the table that is normally available—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Unley, your colleagues here are actually seeking to ask questions, so I might turn to one of them. Member for Heysen, I understand you want to make a contribution?

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks, Chair. I will take the opportunity. We are all doing our best, I think, in the circumstances. To carry on from what I have described as the four key consequences of the passage of the bill insofar as it affects the site and the development: first, heritage is gone; second, live music is gone, at least for two years now for the purposes of the development, then we all have high hopes for the return; third, there is a development that will be now approved for 10 additional storeys. I appreciate the minister's description of the consequence of all that.

I will just say in passing in that regard: I hope it is just the fact that it is such an immediate impression of what the 29 storeys would look like compared with the 19 storeys, but the render for the original looks so much more attractive than the render for the new one. I will just indicate that I hope that what is built ends up not looking like a large, narrow thing on the adjoining block with the hotel next to it, that there is some sort of design and architectural capacity. I think we are all confessing that we are not architects and engineers, but I just indicate that the renders I have seen of the new tower do not look quite as attractive as the original one, just on the face of it.

Fourth, there is this now imposition of a cost burden for noise attenuation throughout the designated area. I have highlighted that the bill does, therefore, apply certain new arrangements, particularly noise attenuation, within the designated zone in respect of potential future decisions. That is the subject of clause 3. You have a certain amount of consequence of general application. But there is no getting away from the fact that in clause 4 you have essentially a whole run of conditions that would normally just be applied to an individual planning decision and would not find their way into a piece of legislation.

My first clause 1 question is: how come, if so many shortcomings of the planning process—so many, call them, non-commercial or inhibiting factors in the planning process—have been discovered in the course of this whole exercise, then why has it not been possible and deemed preferable by the government to fashion a piece of legislation of general application that can improve the playing field for all participants for the foreseeable future?

I will put it another way. Why are we now not seeing a new landscape that might promote significant capital investment in the CBD in the designated area? Why are we possibly finding ourselves in this eddy that is very directly and specifically associated with one location, one development application, one negotiation, to take up the sentiments of the member for Colton? What assurance is there that we are not going to see planning by legislation one after the other? I concede that the last time we did this there was a particularly unusual set of circumstances; this, I submit, not so much.

Is there any kind of comfort that might be given about lessons learned and is there any prospect now that the planning system can be changed so that, where there are these competing objectives, that can actually be done in an orderly way in the process, including a greater capacity for the minister to step in and make decisions on the merits, if that is deemed to be in the best interests of moving forward?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member for Heysen asked a very broad-ranging question. He has been the minister for planning himself, so I think he has a bit of a taste about just how vast a system it is; it is everything from sheds, pool pumps in some instances, right the way through to large buildings. Our planning system actually gets a lot of marks, a lot of ticks, from the Business Council of Australia, and the federal government have run their eye over it. Absent of infrastructure issues, the planning system, which has been built by successive governments of both persuasions, is a very good planning system that deals with thousands of applications every year and hundreds of complaints and has very good public consultation provisions that allow people to express their view on things like code amendments and the like.

From the outset—and I have said this publicly and I will say it in the house—it is a very good planning system. There are always people out there in the ether who will say that in this one circumstance you can change the whole system so you will not have a unique circumstance. What I would say is that this was a very unique circumstance, a very bespoke solution was required and, hence, the bill in the house. It was unique in terms of the nature of this hotel and its particular cultural importance to Adelaide.

I used to go to concerts at the Tivoli Hotel. I went to see The Clouds there in about 1994; I still remember the hangover. I used to go to the Producers Hotel. There are other stories. I almost got into a fight with a young Liberal in the Producers Hotel; I will not tell the story.

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that's right. This circumstance has happened before without public consternation, and development has proceeded. In this instance, I do not think any system could really take into account something like the Cranker hotel and I do not think it could take into account the demand for student accommodation as we amalgamate the universities.

Adelaide is going through a unique period of growth and I do not think, as a society, we quite know what is coming at us. The city is very different from when I was a young man. So we have a bespoke solution to a bespoke issue which is caused by a particular point of time, and I do not think we should translate that into a need to completely upend the planning system or completely overturn the heritage act.

I listened to the member for Unley's contribution pretty diligently. I have a different view about Melbourne when I go there. There is a lot of facadism and, if you look at historic photos of the CBD of Melbourne, there is an awful lot that has gone as well. Cities do change and grow and develop. There is sometimes a sense of nostalgia about the past and there is sometimes a sense of regret. Was it the Federal Hotel on the corner of Rundle, and the Exhibition Building—although there are different discussions about the Exhibition Building. People have said it is not very well constructed. It is hard to know now, but it looks beautiful from the outside. I am a bit sentimental about brutalism. I like some of the brutalist, modernist buildings from the sixties and seventies.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that's right, and we all know those buildings too. For the member for Heysen's information, while there is no referral to the Government Architect, the Government Architect has met with Wee Hur about the built form. But none of us are architects and beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder. To sum it up, it is a bespoke solution for a very bespoke set of circumstances.

Mr TEAGUE: I mean this respectfully, but I guess the fallacy to some extent in the answer is that we have now, subject to clause 3, a new overlay that contemplates what will happen in circumstances where there is a development near a live music venue in the designated area. So we can contemplate heading into new territory. I take it from the answer that this is sufficiently unique that where a clause 3 scenario happens in the future, we are not going to see another bill come through with the equivalent of clause 4 for that particular location.

We have the noise attenuation requirements that are now going to be applied across the board. One takes it from that answer and from the fact that that is contained within this bill that it is contemplated that there will be live music preservation-type arrangements through noise attenuation, but that they will not necessitate a subsequent specifically named bill that is going to then apply for the particular protection arrangements for that next approval; that is, every time we see clause 3 doing its work in the designated area, we are not going to see another bill coming through saying, 'Righto, now we've got'—and the minister has named a few venues.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Long-gone venues.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. A question that takes it another step down the line, then, is: to what extent is there any possibility of retrospectivity in terms of works that are either in the approval process or have been approved or work has been commenced the subject of an approval, that are now going to be caught by this noise attenuation requirement and, therefore, developers ought to be on notice that they are up for some change of circumstance?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We might deal with clause 3 when we get to clause 3, if you like, but the answer is no, there will not be any retrospectivity applied.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, perhaps because it is most convenient at this stage, although there might be questions to be asked at clause 4—and I hope that this is not a quick commercial-in-confidence response—the lessee has been in the media indicating that there is a view about what is going to happen during the two years. Two years has been regarded as the time it is anticipated that it is going to be shut down. There has been some mention, at least in concept, about a pop-up Cranker or something, and there has been mention of the workforce. We have otherwise not seen the lessee visibly around the table in all of this. This is essentially a planning-led arrangement.

Is there some agreement that goes hand in hand with this for the provision of compensation to the lessee? If so, what is the amount and what is the way forward? Is there any assurance that the government can give about what actually happens to the Cranker over the next couple of years?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The planning system as it now exists does not contemplate, interfere with or deal with in any way the arrangement between a lessor and a lessee. A lessor and a lessee will have their own commercial contract under other acts. The planning system does not deal with that and neither does this bill. All this bill does is preserve the Cranker as a live music venue and it deals with the student accommodation and it deals with the noise attenuation issues that the member referred to before.

However, the government is working with the lessee in this instance to see if we can be of assistance. That is not my policy area so it is other arms of government that are looking at that. It is not contemplated in the bill because the planning systems—and this is a planning bill—do not normally contemplate those matters.

Mr BATTY: I want to make a brief contribution, having a significant interest in preserving heritage buildings across our state and having worked with and heard from the various volunteers who have been working on this campaign, engaging in a really thoughtful way how we approach these issues. I want to thank Evan for his time in briefing me on some of these issues over the past little while.

There has been much celebration with people here in the gallery today with the Save the Cranker campaign and a lot of rhetoric around 'saving' the Cranker. I want to delve a little bit into what we actually mean when we say that. I am seeing paraphernalia being distributed saying, 'We've saved the Cranker.' You have said just now you have preserved it as a live music venue. The member for Adelaide has social media up saying that the land use will always be a hotel and that can never change; is that correct? It can never change? This will always be a hotel and it will always be a live music venue, unless we come back and amend this legislation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, it can only change with the concurrence of the Minister for Planning and I would have to undertake public consultation for four weeks.

Mr BATTY: So the member for Adelaide running around and saying, 'We've saved the Cranker because it's going to be a live music venue forever, it can't be demolished ever, it has to be a hotel forever,' is just not true, is it? All this bill does is make you the sole decision-maker on the future of that building.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: For as long as there is a Labor government, it will be a hotel and a live music venue. I cannot speak for some future Batty administration, can I? I am not a soothsayer.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Minister, you should refer to members by their electorates.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Thank you, Chair. The Labor government, having saved the Cranker, is going to save the Cranker, and this bill absolutely preserves it as a hotel, as a live music venue and that is an important thing to do.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order! The minister is answering the question.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We would not be going to all this effort if that was not our intention and commitment. I will just say to the member for Bragg that he began with a bit of his interest in heritage matters. I as a planning minister, have initiated, I think it is about half a dozen but it might well be more, heritage code amendments in the City of Adelaide, in the City of Prospect, Norwood Payneham and St Peters council and Charles Sturt council.

So what is happening under this government is an enormous protection of local heritage and the upgrading of character areas into historic areas and with that, demolition control, so that councils can properly protect and preserve the built form heritage of those councils. We have been very, very deliberate in that action. That could have been done in the past by previous governments, and it was not. As planning minister, I have said to councils, I have an open door. If they want to preserve heritage in their local areas, and they want to go through the heritage code amendment, I am very happy to do so.

Of course, we are doing important work in the member for Adelaide's electorate and she is a very passionate, I can assure the member, defender of heritage in places like Prospect and Walkerville and Adelaide. The member for Dunstan is a passionate defender of heritage and built form in places like Norwood and, guess what, we are actually doing something about it. We do not just talk about it; we actually do something about it in conjunction with the local councils there.

Mr BATTY: Just by way of clarification, any comment that the Cranker's land use as a hotel cannot change is incorrect and misleading.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It cannot change without my concurrence and I have to go through four weeks of consultation beforehand. I think I have stated the government's policy intention. Our policy intention and our commitment is to make it a pub, a hotel, a live music venue forever.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Are there further contributions on this clause?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order, members!

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: Forgive us for reminiscing on the 'trust us' messages that have come from the Labor Party previously. In regard to clause 2 of the bill, I think it would be helpful for the committee for the minister to outline the reasons for the inclusion of this bill and the practical application of it.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Clause 2 does two things. It changes the code so that it is consistent with other acts. It also changes the code so that the instrument under the P&D Code can be easily utilised including in this case noise attenuation standards which are already in the code.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When will the regulations be published, considering this is such a rush?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It refers to regulations that are already in place.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr COWDREY: In particular reference to the bolded headline of 'Designated live music venue', our understanding is that the minister is preparing, or in the process of preparing, or may or may not have started preparing, a list of designated live music venues. Why was that list not included with the bill today or provided to the opposition of the South Australian public more broadly prior to bringing this bill today so that there was a more accurate understanding of what impacts would be thrust upon the development industry in South Australia as a result of this bill?

What is the government's framework for assessing whether or not a venue will be a designated live music venue? Is it a pub in the CBD that has an acoustic performer on the balcony once every two weeks? Is there a more substantial threshold that needs to be crossed before the government is willing to designate a live music venue? How many does the government anticipate being on that list at first instance?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This is a legitimate question, I think, from the opposition. I am not making reflections on any other contributions. It is a perfectly legitimate and, I think, useful question to ask of me in this circumstance, because it is important to have some criteria around it, and I would not mind putting that on the public record.

What we are going to do when we consider whether we designate a venue, on the PlanSA website, is the Minister for Planning will have regard for the following: the extent to which the venue is used as a live music venue; whether there is likely to be residential development within 60 metres of the venue; any relevant zoning that applies to the venue in the Planning and Design Code; whether the venue is a place of state or local heritage; the existing development approval and any relevant conditions attached to it; and any other approvals or licenses, such as a licence under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, that the venue has. They are the starting criteria. What I would say to the honourable member is I think that the designation of a live music venue would have to pass an appropriately high threshold, because it does place costs on development around it.

There were some useful contributions, I think, in the previous debate. Planning laws and heritage laws shape a city, but they do not create the life of a city. They guide it, but they do not create it. The member for Unley was pointing to some of the programs that were in London, I think. There are many, many things that governments, communities, councils and citizens can do to make cities lively, vibrant, interesting places, and planning laws play some role in that, but you cannot manufacture the life of a city.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I will respond to the minister's compliment with one back to him, because it does seem to be a well-developed, well-worked-through criteria that he has put together, one that certainly has had at least some degree of thought put into it. How many live music venues do you believe currently fit the criteria that you have just outlined to the house and what are they? Can you list them for the committee?

In regard to the process of putting forward this list, are you required to undertake any consultation prior to declaring a venue onto this list? Are you the sole decision-maker in terms of making a determination? Essentially, if Minister Champion decides that it is okay, it goes straight on the list? What is the process for a venue being designated and how many fit the current criteria that you have just outlined to the house?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The answer to the honourable member's question is it is a minister and in this case it is me. I have given you the criteria by which I will approach this, but I do not have a list of live music venues in the city in my mind. I am going to take considered advice and consult with my department about what the appropriate way forward is.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, I am confused. The minister has a framework, has a bill before the house but has not contemplated what impacts may possibly come from a list that he has a criteria for but has not determined who or what buildings may or may not be on that list. It does not make a lot of sense, I think, to those on this side of the house for the government to be moving a bill that has been admitted by the minister will place considerable burden on those who wish to develop in the vicinity of these designated live music venues, but has not provided any level of consideration of how wideranging those impacts could be. It seems preposterous that we would have a Minister for Planning walk into this place, ask us to consider a bill in front of us, having not himself considered the impact of the very legislation that he is putting before the house today.

Again, I ask you, minister: do you have a fully developed criteria or at least an outline of a criteria that would, on face value, seem like it has had an appropriate level of consideration? Have you at least requested that your department go and determine how many venues within the Adelaide CBD would fit the criteria that you have just outlined? Do you understand the impact of what is before us and what potentially may come from that? Again, can I ask you the simple question: can you provide us with the list of live venues that you think fit the criteria that you have just outlined to the house?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The noise attenuation guidelines that exist in the Planning and Development Code already exist and already apply in some instances.

Mr Cowdrey: But they are not mandated.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just listen to my answer. You had a fair crack, member for Colton, in terms of time and volume. I am not going that far in complimenting you. Provisions already exist in the act. We think it is prudent because there are, like it or not, going to be and have been times, and this is an issue from time to time, when developments go up around well-known live music venues and then people make complaints and so you are building in a problem for the live music venue. What this seeks to do around well-known, well-established live music venues that meet the criteria—

Mr Cowdrey: Name them.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said before, I am not going to put the cart before the horse. The bill passes the house and then I will sensibly sit down and make prudent planning decisions about the future. What I would say is, what we are doing here, when you apply those noise attenuation guidelines, you go straight to cost but, of course, you are also preserving the amenity and peace of residents around these venues, so you are preserving their quality of life by making—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, for a new development. A new development will have better noise attenuation, which is not a bad thing in a city, probably something—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You are acting like it is entirely a bad thing: it is not a bad thing. This will be a good thing. I think noise attenuation is generally a feature that would be attractive to people who are developing units in the city. I think that would be an attractive selling point. I do not believe it will put on undue costs and I do not think it will have some catastrophic effect like the member says it will. It is a sensible clause, a sensible power for a sensible planning minister to have, and I will use it sensibly.

The CHAIR: Member for Colton, you have had three goes.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps a supplementary then, sir?

The CHAIR: You want a supplementary?

Mr COWDREY: If that is okay, with your wise guidance.

The CHAIR: Okay.

Mr COWDREY: That being the case, minister, that you will use it sensibly and obviously be attentive in your duties, have you sought the view of the AHA, Property Council and UDIA and, if so, what are their views on what has been proposed in the legislation in regard to the attenuation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have not heard from the AHA, though their hotels are more likely to be subject to this power than the developers around it. I have talked to the Property Council; I talk to Bruce Djite fairly often. Bruce always puts his views pretty forthrightly. I spoke to him just before the bill was announced to the public at the Save the Cranker rally. He has not called me since that time.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Was that before the back bench?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley!

An honourable member: What did he say?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: He just wanted to know the broad features of the solution that we were trying to get. What are we trying to do here? We are trying to preserve a hotel, tick; preserve live music, tick; and get a good outcome in terms of student accommodation, tick. It is a pretty good outcome, I would have thought, for heritage, live music, culture and development. It is a good outcome. Just like this bill is a good outcome, these powers given to a sensible minister are also a good outcome and will lead to good outcomes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I want to try to get some specifics out of this. I am quite a practical kind of person and to me the questions and answers on this particular section of the bill have been quite academic. If the live music venue is a host for karaoke, will this apply? If it is a live music venue that is for acoustic music, singing and guitars and pianos and things like that, will it apply? I know, with my experience as the minister responsible for the music industry, that you will often see somebody who has developed an electronic piece of music and a choreographed dance to go with it performing in front of an audience, which is considered as live music and very much accepted in the live music sector. Would a nightclub or a pub that focused on any of those styles of live music trigger this section of the clause?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I might just expand on my previous answer. The Premier's office briefed both the Property Council of Australia and the AHA, so both were briefed and I have not had any follow-up correspondence with them to my knowledge. That is just for the house's knowledge.

In relation to the honourable member's question, live music would be taken to be the natural meaning of live music. You know live music when you see it. The honourable member could raise a million obscure questions about what constitutes live music. I do not think we will have that problem. I think perhaps when the Cranker reopens I will take the member for Bragg there.

Mr Batty: Your buy.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will buy him a beer or whatever he drinks. I will have rum and we will listen to some live music together and we will know what it means because it will be right there in front of us.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just to be clear, what you are telling me is that if it is an acoustic performance it will not trigger this clause, if it is a karaoke bar where people sing live to loud music or if it is a performance of a choreographed electronic music and dance situation that is loud, that will not trigger this clause. I just want a yes or a no. I am not in charge of art.

The CHAIR: We would have never known that, member for Unley. It is a good thing you told us.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would say a karaoke performance would not constitute live music. You know live music when you see it: it involves an instrument, it involves a performance.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You are so old-fashioned, minister.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that's right. But if someone wants to get an electric synthesiser out and do other additional things to it you would be able to see—

An honourable member: AI.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not think an AI performer would constitute live music. I think the honourable member is reaching for technicalities that will not eventuate. What we will see is live music, a range of performances and they will be in a pub where I can buy the member for Bragg a bipartisan beer and we will enjoy the ambience, we will enjoy the music, and I will be able to reminisce about my youth.

Mr TEAGUE: There are a few things that are attendant here in clause 3. One is, if we just turn over to clause 5 for a minute for ease of convenient reference, we are actually getting way ahead of ourselves in the sense that we have this designated live music venue area that the government has seen fit to include in the bill. There are a few of the streets within the area that are even set out on the map, but there are more streets than that and there are potential live music venues dotted around within that area that are not even identified by reference to a relevant street.

The point is, though, that the eventual scenario is going to be a kind of chequerboard of designated venues within the area, as I understand the objective. They may not be identified now but you will eventually see dotted around in amongst the area a series of such venues so that you know if you are going to propose a development, you are going to be up for the 60-metre assessment and the noise attenuation and all the rest of it, but we are just not there yet. We have the framework, we are going to see the chequerboard compiled, but we are not there yet. Hold that thought.

The eventual situation, once you are dealing with a decision being made, the subject of these clause 3 changes—and I am picturing the minister getting around at midnight doing his own self-assessment in the back of the car: 'That one looks like it's happening, mark that one down for consideration; it could be in the area,' and Tom Waits is playing in the background and could not put it better than all that—we are still stuck are we not, in all seriousness, with a Miller v Jackson type situation where you have the famous case of the folks who move in on the edge of the cricket ground and then they bring the nuisance case based on the cricket balls exiting the ground.

Lord Denning says, 'How dare you! The public interest has to take precedence over the private, so you cannot possibly have a nuisance from a cricket ground that has been playing cricket for decades and decades,' but he is in the minority. The rest of the court upholds the basic legal principle, which says, 'No, every time the ball heads off into the Millers' front yard or breaks their window, that is an instance of negligence and constitutes a nuisance, and there is damage and so on.

So we are not providing some kind of shortcut or avoidance of what might anyway be eventual claims in nuisance for those future residents of the venues: what we are providing is a certain amount of mandated noise attenuation. That might reduce the possibility of the nuisance action to some extent, but we are not doing away with that altogether, are we? We are not saying it is a live music venue therefore that takes precedence over anything else that might happen, and whatever else you do, if anyone moves in, there is no possibility to make a claim and there is no possibility for that to result in the ending of live music at that venue. None of that is true, is it—maybe sensibly.

But all you are doing is ending up with the chequerboard scenario so there is some notice to developers and then putting them on notice that, if they want to do residential development, they are going to have to put on additional noise attenuation. The rest is down to how the residents and the live musician venue find each other. What happens might result in peace in our time, but it might also result in claims by residents against the live music venue with the result that you cannot any longer play the live music. Is that a correct assessment of the result of what is going to happen when clause 3 comes into play?