Bills

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

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The answer to the member's question is: the complaints he envisages by residents around live music venues would be handled under the Liquor Licensing Act. It is a separate act. What the powers of—

Mr TEAGUE: Or a common law.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, or common law; the honourable member is a lawyer and I am not. What this act seeks to do is, in a city, because we have this issue—there is this issue more broadly. You have given the example of a cricket oval. I think there are some examples interstate of airports where someone might move in and then begin the complaint process. I will not make any comment about all of that except to say it is an interesting phenomenon. What I would say is that cities need life. They need culture, they need music.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I like some of the imagery you conjure up, member for Heysen. They need all of that. It attracts people. Unfortunately, then, how do you get those two things to cohabit? What I would say is that this gives the Minister for Planning some very sensible powers that would be used sparingly and sensibly in order just to better accommodate that in our CBD. As I said before, in 1994, 1996, 1997 or 1998, you could go down the Cranker and all through there were a bunch of pubs, but there were not many residents at that point.

Then urban renewal happened, and urban renewal in the East End has been spectacular. It has been a spectacular success. That is a good thing, it is an excellent thing, but we have to preserve the very thing that people found attractive in the first place, which is the life of that precinct. As I said before, it is a job beyond the planning system, but what this does is just give the planning minister, whatever party they are in, some powers that can be sensibly applied in order to have better quality development in and around live music venues.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful. To the extent this is repetition, the committee might forgive me. It is a fair summary of the provision, though, isn't it, to say that this is a planning provision? It is all about a condition that will be placed on the residential development in terms of built noise attenuation, and so it is kind of handing the rest over to the universe and saying the planning bit is done within reason, it is the structure that is capable of resisting noise to some extent. If anything else surprising ensues—people like sitting outside on their balcony and complaining about the noise, or whatever it is—that is off to be dealt with somewhere else.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Simply, that is correct. The member would know, having been a minister for planning, you get a lot of correspondence about matters that you have to write back to the individual saying, 'I'm sorry that that's outside the scope of the planning act.' Often, it relates to noise and to issues like that. I remember I had a letter from a constituent of the member for Bragg, who raised quite a serious issue, which I am contemplating and thinking about, which is where—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No; I will tell you what it is. You will like this. This person lived next door to an allotment that became a car wash and, of course, there is a vacuum cleaner right outside his bedroom window, which is a 24-hour thing. Sensibly, thinking forward, I think we should contemplate something around that in the planning system. I think we can make changes, but you cannot account for every single circumstance that might happen in the city. A planning system cannot do that. All this does is give the planning minister a pathway by which they will make for better amenity for the residents living in and around live music venues.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe for completeness, this might be a preview of a question that might be road-tested in clause 4. Clause 3 might be contrasted with clause 4 in the sense that the member for Bragg has not only shared in terms of wise counsel here in the house but also put it on the Hansard record in the course of the debate. Clause 4 is going to see the minister holding all the cards in terms of decisions specifically in terms of the Crown and Anchor regime. If we are to look at the clause 3 circumstance, where there is, if I can put it this way, a conventional planning approval requirement for noise attenuation, that is our core planning point. 'All right, you can build, you just have to do your noise attenuation in addition to everything else you have to do.'

The clause 4 process puts all the decisions in the hands of the minister: 'Okay, do the consultation.' Forgive the hypothetical, but here we are dealing with something quite specific. What happens if all 29 storeys, filled with all 643 residents, or how many it is, decide that they are finding this noise downstairs is a bit of a nuisance and they feel like they want to participate in a consultation with the minister about it, and all of a sudden this populated urban renewed city is now providing the member for Adelaide with a whole lot of constituents who are saying, 'We're over all this loud noise'? From a clause 3 point of view, the minister says, 'I did the noise attenuation requirement. That was within my remit. You need to go and talk to the liquor licensing crowd or advance your action at common law, or wherever it might be.'

Whereas, in clause 4, the member for Adelaide might be coming and knocking on the minister's door, and the minister might be moved to exercise the responsibilities the minister has held on to in terms of decisions for future changes. It is the case, isn't it, that, unusually, unlike all these other chequerboard places within the designated area that might be the subject of the special arrangements insofar as the Crown and Anchor is concerned, the consultation, the four weeks, that leads to the minister making a decision about a change, is something then that the minister is keeping within the planning space and could therefore be responsive to residents' concerns about nuisance or other like issues.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Are we going to skip forward to clause 4, or do you want to stay on this? This is a somewhat different aspect. I am happy to answer questions about clause 4 down the track, if you like. Do you want to do that?

Mr TEAGUE: Treat it as a preview.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: They are quite separate. One is about a specific hotel and the other is about noise attenuation in and around designated live music venues. They are different; I understand how you might want to link them, but they are different. I am happy to answer the clause 4 questions in clause 4.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: With the designated live music venues, can venues apply to be on that list? If they do apply, what is the criteria for acceptance? If they do not agree with that, is there a process of appeal? Can they be added at any time, or is there a certain time of the year when applications are viewed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I put down the criteria for the member for Colton. I am not sure if the member for Unley was here at the time, but that is now in Hansard. If a venue or an owner of a hotel wanted to write to me seeking to be designated, I would consider that in an appropriate way.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr BATTY: Clause 4 is the historic saving of the Cranker provision, of course. Having saved the Cranker now, you have also given yourself quite an extraordinary power in being able to unsave the Cranker once we pass this bill—tomorrow, if you want, or next week or next month or indeed the next minister next year or the year after. Why have you inserted that extraordinary power to unsave the Cranker at a whim?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In order for a change of use, there would have to be a development application. That is set out. I would then have to go through public consultation. Let me make it clear for the member for Bragg who is, as always, so far off the policy and so into the politics. I admire it; I admire your commitment, but you just have to accept that the Cranker has been saved. You and I are going to go down and have a beer and listen to live music.

Mr BATTY: In 20 years' time?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We all know that the hotel has to close as the development for the student accommodation occurs. There will be refurbishment of the hotel and then it will reopen and live music will commence. That is something that the developer wants to do in this case. So, this is a bespoke bill. It is a bespoke solution. It is a pretty elegant bill, if I might say so myself, in every aspect except for consultation with the opposition. I am happy to take that criticism on board. You know how much I love briefing you on all other matters of planning. I try to interact with members of this house in a bipartisan way because the planning system is very important to the state economically, socially and all the rest. So Cranker saved. I do not think I will see a development application, but if I do you can get some indication about the seriousness in which I would assess any change of use.

Mr BATTY: We will just have to take your word for it that the Cranker has been saved and we can look forward to that beer. That provision need not have been in there. It could have simply come back to the parliament if it was so important, if you really wanted to enshrine it. I do not see this section really changing much at all, other than making the super minister slightly more super perhaps.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: If that's possible.

Mr BATTY: If that is even possible. My second question is: is there something fundamentally wrong with the heritage act, the heritage system and the way we protect local and state heritage places broadly? You have described this as a very unique case and a very bespoke solution. This building is so special you have had to rip away heritage protection from it. It is so worth protecting that you do not want our heritage laws anywhere near it because it is too dangerous to leave it in that stream; we have to legislate specifically for it. Is there something wrong with the way we protect heritage generally in this state, and what are you going to do about it?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. You can go around our city and see a number of examples. The Tivoli is actually a very good example and the Producers is a good example, and there are many, many other uses where historic buildings have had adaptive reuse. However, that protects the built form. That is what heritage laws do, they protect the built form. In this case, we are trying to protect the built form and the usage, and that is a different task. In this case, as I said before, this is a unique set of circumstances. To give the member comfort, we are protecting the hotel and its use, and that is why it has a bill of its own and the Minister for Planning has powers to protect it. That will preserve its heritage and its use, and that is a good thing.

Mr BATTY: So, out of the many hundreds of state heritage-listed buildings and locally heritage-listed places, there is no other place or building in the state worthy of the same sort of treatment where we need to be legislating specifically to protect both the building and its cultural use? I think the only time I have ever seen legislation like this in the heritage space is actually trying to demolish heritage listed buildings.

There was the very special purpose, bespoke, unique solution for the Thebarton Police Barracks, which of course had a very different outcome for heritage. Why are we not seeing, in a similar vein, pulling the Thebarton Police Barracks out of the planning system or the heritage system and legislating to protect that as barracks going forward, by way of example? I know you are putting the bulldozer through that so it is a mere example.

Leading on from that, is this the start of a trend? You often write to me and say, 'We've got an independent planning process for a reason. We've got expert planning assessment. Don't look at me.' Are we trying to move away from that? Do we want to now politicise the planning process? If we can get 1,000 people at a rally, is it now the super minister who gets to decide what happens to heritage buildings? And what is that number? Because I could do it to a few more buildings if it is going to assist to protect and preserve them in the future.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think what makes this unique is that we are trying to protect land use and we are trying to facilitate student accommodation on a pretty unique site. That is why we have this bill.

The state heritage act has been examined by this parliament, and there have been recommendations about the state heritage act and the State Heritage Register. Local heritage still resides within planning and is subject to code amendments, and those code amendments go through a process via councils, via the State Planning Commission. A local heritage code amendment ends up on the planning minister's desk both for initiation and for approval, and a heritage code amendment also comes to the ERD Committee of this parliament for approval as well.

I was not here when minister Rau, the deputy premier at the time, moved the planning legislation, but essentially you have a series of independent decisions through the State Planning Commission and the like, and through the SCAP—I do not involve myself in those—and then you have a series of decisions that I think properly come to the minister's desk, and then they are reviewed by this parliament. That is a model that was in when previous ministers were around, and it is one that I have done.

We have a greater pace of code amendments than we ever had before: council-led code amendments, state government-led code amendments and private-led code amendments. I forget the exact number in the system but it is massive, and I thank the staff at PLUS for their hard work. Notwithstanding the member for Bragg's comments, what he will find is that at the end of this term in the areas where I have power and jurisdiction and decision-making capability, there will be greater protection of local heritage.

Mr COWDREY: My first question in regard to this clause is going to be about the built form. I provide the passing commentary that it is good to see that the minister views his own work in such high regard. I do not know that I have ever heard a minister describe their own work as, what was it, eloquent?

Members interjecting:

Mr COWDREY: Just ask me. My question in regard to built form and in particular the removal of the application of the Heritage Places Act, what does that mean for the built form of the Crown and Anchor Hotel moving forward both in regard to maintenance requirements that would otherwise be expected under the act and, for the sake of future funds, for the ability of the proprietor or owner of the Crown and Anchor Hotel to apply for heritage funds for the restoration of the building should it need that? What does the removal of the application of the Heritage Places Act mean for the built form of the Crown and Anchor Hotel from a practical sense moving forward?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Essentially what it means is that you do not have a double layer of protection. You will not have the heritage act protecting it; you will have, in this case, the bill which we are discussing and that is sufficient protection. You do not need belt and braces. Well, you might, but I do not think it is necessary in this case. So the PDI Act will effectively protect the built form of the Cranker.

It is interesting to note that at the start of this debate and my second reading speech, and I think in my summing up, the Cranker had a local listing but it was not on the State Heritage Register. It was provisionally listed, but if you look at the built form of the hotel it was a very beautiful building in its original form and it had had a lot of work done to it at some point in its life. The balcony was added, the windows were changed—and this is just what I have observed—and the doorway was changed quite a bit, so it might have had a bit of modernisation in the fifties and sixties.

What I would say is that the protections in the act are much more significant than the protections it had, say, six months to a year ago.

Mr COWDREY: You mentioned the provisional listing, because I think that essentially is the crux of what I am trying to ask here. Should the Crown and Anchor have achieved state heritage listing, there would have been another layer of protection provided to the built form of the Crown and Anchor Hotel itself. There would have been further requirements in terms of the maintenance of the building and the state that it was required to be kept in. I cannot see any of those requirements that exist in the Heritage Places Act replicated in the bill that is before us. Are you trying to tell the house that you believe there is the same level of protection that would have been there for the Crown and Anchor Hotel had that provisional listing become permanent in the bill before us today?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: What I would say is that the projections in this act are more substantial because it protects it from demolition. It also protects it from change of use. What members opposite are talking about is a provisional listing. They are not talking about it being listed. Under the local heritage listing that it had, it could have been demolished, it could have been completely repurposed. So that is a listing it actually had, rather than a provisional listing. This act comes in and protects the hotel as both a hotel and protects its use as a live music venue, and it gives a very high level of protection that I think will be sufficient going forward.

Mr COWDREY: A supplementary, and perhaps I will provide a greater level of detail. I thought I was leading the minister to where hopefully we were going to get a resolution and an answer to the question that I was posing to him. Essentially, the question is in regard to a protection around demolition by neglect. It applies currently under the Heritage Places Act to those that are state heritage listed. Again, it was a provisional listing. We assume that that would have been given at some point in time, given in particular the views that there would be significant respect for the heritage value of the Crown and Anchor Hotel in terms of its built form. Is there a requirement in this bill to maintain the Crown and Anchor Hotel in a state that is sufficient and would have been replicated through the Heritage Places Act?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not think the honourable member is dealing with reality. The reality of this site—and it is pretty clear to everybody except him—is that we have a good outcome here. I know you are struggling to find something to hang your hats on, but just understand this: we are going to get a huge investment in student accommodation. The owners of the site do not want to have that enormous investment in student accommodation and then somehow have a derelict site right next to it. It defies reason. It defies common sense. What will happen is, they are very keen to have a good, operating live music venue hotel next to their student accommodation, and that is what we are going to get. For the member to make a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical, I think will not need to be accounted for.

Mr COWDREY: The 'just trust me' comes back again. Minister, I am just seeking some clarification in regard to the current zoning situation for the site at 188 Grenfell Street. Are you able to provide an indication for the committee of the current zoning and the current height maximum that applies to that site?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The current TNV maximum building height—and I said this in my second reading speech—is 53 metres. The proposal that was made, the original proposal, was 63.67 metres. What that is attempting to accommodate is, in all of the height, there was built into the planning system what is called 'performance planning'. So if you had affordable housing, you would get—I think it is 15 per cent, from memory—additional height if you meet certain criteria. That has been a matter of contention in communities and it is something that has been dealt with by the expert panel and we have announced reforms that restrict that in certain instances, because when people hear height limits they tend to think those height limits are—when you hear 53 metres you expect it to be 53 metres.

This is in a city. There is the opportunity to go higher. It is not the highest building in the vicinity, I do not think. There are higher buildings in the vicinity. What we are getting here is essentially additional height to get the same student accommodation outcome—that is a good thing—and we are preserving the hotel and the usage of the hotel in the process. I think these things are colloquially known as win-win situations.

If you want to know my attitude to height in the city, I think height in the city is a good thing, particularly when we are protecting heritage. The City of Adelaide has a code amendment on local heritage. What that typically does is constrain development. The member for Unley was talking about the sorts of grand bargains or compromises that have happened in Unley. They have development along Unley Road, and that is good development. I think the member for Unley takes a very mature approach to that, as does the council, because they know that the growth in housing along Unley Road goes side by side with the preservation of beautiful colonial heritage that is unique to Adelaide.

In the CBD of Adelaide, we have a lot of one and two-storey colonial buildings that are beautiful and should be appropriately preserved, but every time you do that you are effectively down-zoning pretty big chunks of your city and so inevitably you have to make that up elsewhere. If you look at the proposals that are going on from the market through to the Australia Post site, we are going to have to make up for some of the historic preservation in height elsewhere.

Mr COWDREY: I just have one final question in regard to that answer around the win-win and protection of heritage. To the minister's last point in regard to a thriving local music venue and student accommodation business, obviously the intent of the developer and the business owner is to have a thriving student accommodation business and a thriving live music venue—we certainly hope that that is the case. In presenting that argument, you are making the assumption that this is going to be a viable business. You are making the assumption that there is always going to be a viable operation whose best interests it is to uphold the heritage value in the built form of the infrastructure of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

The protections that are provided to those with listings under the state Heritage Places Act, should the Crown and Anchor have secured that listing, would assure the maintenance of the building to a standard that is required and there is the ability under the act to enforce maintenance. There is the ability under the act to procure funds to ensure that that occurs. Again, my question to you is simply: do you believe that should the Crown and Anchor Hotel have secured a state heritage listing that what is present in this bill before us today provides the exact same level of protection that would have been available to the Crown and Anchor Hotel under the Heritage Places Act?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have a bit of information for the member for Colton. The powers he talks about in the heritage act do not actually exist in the form that he imagines they exist. If they did—I can take you around to any number of buildings that are falling down but are heritage listed. I believe there are some policies and proposed laws that will come to this house that might do that—a good thing. But what the honourable member asks us to believe is that the—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, no, I listened to you, with great patience. What you ask us to contemplate and to believe is that the developer, having spent money putting in noise attenuation, which they are required to as part of this bill—so he puts all this noise attenuation in this hotel—they then embark on a course of neglect. It does not make any sense. If you invest in making this hotel better, preparing it for live music, keeping it a live music venue, you are going to invest in it and you are going to make it work, and that is their intention. There is a great deal of protection under this bill for the Crown and Anchor. As I said before, I look forward to shouting the lot of you a drink in the reopened Cranker Hotel, and we can listen to a live band in the process.

Mr TEAGUE: This better be beyond just the member for Bragg—I am delighted, I have been waiting for that moment.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: In fact, I might take you rather than him.

Mr TEAGUE: All inclusive sounds good. With the clause 3 preview about where we get to here with clause 4, clause 4 we are in Crown and Anchor specific territory and in circumstances where a change of use is down to the minister to authorise. To identify it, it will be the new section 135A(1)(c) that is providing for a prohibition against a change in use of the hotel land without the minister concurring in the granting of the authorisation. In the new 135A(2):

(2) the Minister cannot concur in the granting of the development authorisation…unless the minister conducts public consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) for a period of at least 4 weeks on the proposed development.

So, clear enough. Does it not stand to reason—and you might call it a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical—that, when you have built the development, all of a sudden you have got a whole new community of interest in the immediate vicinity. Leave aside the potential for individual nuisance actions, and so on, but from a consultation point of view, by structuring the bill this way specifically in relation to this venue, and then by pronouncing in the course of the debate and the committee just now, 'You're safe with me, while I'm the minister you won't be getting any changes, I'm a good minister, there might be other ministers down the track, I can't speak for them,' isn't the minister risking pre-judging such a consultation, in circumstances where the minister has discharge obligations, where it stands to reason that there will actually be a quite significant change in community interest as a direct result of what is being facilitated here?

Therefore, a respectable argument might be made in a year or two or 10 after this particular development is completed, let alone any others permitted in the course of the minister's grand vision for: 'Going up is good, renewal and the great success of the East End,' and all the rest of it, which I completely take on board, in terms of a situation, at least as far as the structure of this is concerned, where the minister is forced to step out of the conventional planning space that we see in clause 3, where there are the conditions of development: 'That's it, I've done my job. Now you go and talk to someone else.'

If the minister finds that the member for Adelaide is no longer knocking on the door saying, 'Everyone wants to save the Cranker, that's what we've got to do,' but instead is saying, 'I've gone door to door on the 29 levels and they all think that live music has to stop right here and, not only that, but everyone in the near vicinity is saying so,' isn't the minister compelling himself by this provision to undertake a consultation process with a view to some sort of objective feedback and then, in the course of that four weeks, having to come up with a view that does not prejudge the circumstance in which we see ourselves now in the course of the debate, but has to actually take on board what that community consultation is telling the minister?

Then he could be in this potentially invidious position of having to come back and say, 'Actually, do you know what? The world has changed, and I am the one who is carrying the can because I held it here in the site-specific legislation that we've got before us.' That is a scenario that might be described as a hypothetical, but where the rubber hits the road is in the minister's obligation to avoid prejudgement and to undertake some sort of exercise that is dispassionate and objective.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Some of the scenarios that you put are not quite accurate, because there has to be a development application at the beginning, and a development application would most likely come from the owner. So one cannot prejudge or pre-imagine some development application.

Mr Teague: He might want a new five-storey Cranker.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I guess the issue is that there is a process. I do not think it is helpful to entertain hypotheticals because I can give you a hypothetical where we do not just have a beer in two years' time but we come back every 10 years. I know you would be happy to do that, member for Heysen, but we will not bring the member for Bragg with us. Hypotheticals are not useful.

As you point out, applications have to be judged appropriately. I always do that. I discharge my obligations as a minister carefully and prudently. I think this is a perfectly sensible clause. I think because there is a development application at the beginning of it, there is public consultation and then there is a judgement by the minister that it is entirely consistent with other aspects of the act.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: One thing we are certainly learning tonight is that the refurbished Cranker is not going to make much money out of the minister: two beers in two years' time and then two more beers ten years later.

Minister, the bill that you have here refers specifically to a certificate of title and a folio with a volume number, so it leaves me to raise a question on behalf of my Parkside constituents: whether a bill can be that specific about a change of purpose—because you have made it very clear that this is more than just use; it is a purpose, it is about preserving live music.

This is a development that SCAP rightly refused on 10 grounds—10 grounds. Some of those grounds are that the development is not consistent with building height, nor does it positively respond to local content. It does not satisfactorily mitigate the impacts of building mass in a residential development within the existing neighbourhood zone. It was also refused because it does not adequately minimise offsite impacts or achieve a high level of design quality, as a result of exceeding the height.

I will not read them all out, just some of the more concerning ones. The building height and mass do not contribute positively to the character of the local area, and the proposal does not meet the urban design, relying on borrowed light and ventilation for many of the habitable rooms. It does not have the required parking, or anywhere near the required parking, relying on offstreet parking that is simply not there.

My question to you is: will you rule out bringing a similar bill? You said that this was a unique situation; well, build-to-rent is unique. We have not done that in South Australia. It is common in the eastern states, but we have not done it here, and you could argue it is another unique project so it needs a unique bill that we would have to rush through the parliament, and it could be called something like the 'planning, development and infrastructure (build-to-rent zone) amendment bill' and could actually override all of the objections, all of the reasons SCAP refused this particular development. What I am seeking from you, minister, is assurances that we will not see an overriding of the SCAP's refused planning consent through a bill in the parliament.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This bill is a unique circumstance around a unique hotel and a unique student accommodation proposition. I cannot highlight to the member enough: it is unique. The member reads out into Hansard an application which I am not going to comment on. It was before SCAP and has been dealt with under the planning system, so I do not think it is sensible for me as Minister for Planning to start talking about particular developments anywhere in the city.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Except this one.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, that is right: except for the bill before the house, which quite clearly sets out its uniqueness. It is a unique bill. Parliamentary approval is not easy to get. I thank the opposition for their consideration of this bill. I think there will be a sensible discussion in the other place as well. Clearly it is unique. I do not expect it to be replicated in other parts of the city, for other reasons.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: With due respect, minister, this situation with build-to-rent is unique to South Australia.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: No, it's not.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In the concept—well, this is part of the selling pitch of the developers. Are you saying the developers are misleading potential customers even before the building has approval? This is a brand-new developer coming into South Australia. It is a unique site. It is not a residential site. It is a commercial site currently. Through that long six-year period of the consultation process and the implementation of the planning bill that we use now it already has agreed heights and setbacks and parking requirements and all sorts of things that are in that act. What I am seeking from you, minister, is that we are not going to see a bill specifically for number 163A-164 Greenhill Road Parkside and 3 Porter Street Parkside that will enable a building that has been rejected by SCAP to be built.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said before, that matter is entirely separate to this bill, but I will just correct the record: there is build-to-rent in South Australia. There is a build-to-rent—the first build-to-rent, as I am often reminded. Every time I talk about Sentinel in Bowden being the first build-to-rent the owner of the Highway Hotel I think sends us an email to the office saying, 'No, no, we were the first build-to-rent.' So there is a build-to-rent being operated—

An honourable member: On Marion Road.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, on Marion Road at the Highway Hotel. I am not going to shout you beers there either, member for Unley. There is build-to-rent behind that, and there is build-to-rent that is being built at Bowden as well. So build-to-rent will be a feature of our system. The planning system can accommodate those proposals and can judge those proposals, and SCAP is completely able to do that, and I do not believe there needs to be any changes to facilitate that—to facilitate the assessment of those sorts of proposals.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just to be clear for my constituents, you will rule out a bill specifically for this development to go ahead in its current form.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just to be clear, this is unique legislation. We do not anticipate unique legislation coming to this parliament in any regular pattern. The build-to-rent category can easily be accommodated in the normal course of the planning system.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the map that has very helpfully been provided by the minister, in clause 5 in regard to the designated live music venue area—which we note is essentially the CBD of Adelaide—why was that designated area chosen? What considerations were given to other live music venues that come to mind that perhaps fit the criteria that the minister has mentioned? The Governor Hindmarsh is, I think, one amongst others that would potentially fit the criteria that was mentioned earlier. For what reason was the designated area simply bounded by the CBD of Adelaide?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You would expect live music to occur in your CBD. Outside of the CBD we do not believe that these powers are needed. As the members before were recognising, these are significant powers that the Minister for Planning will have. We think it is sensible to contain them to the city where we are most likely to have these issues.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, I am trying to understand. Let's take the Stamford Grand at Glenelg, which I hear is a vibrant place on a Sunday afternoon or evening from time to time, and the Ramsgate Hotel at Henley Square. Again, we are not taking a position here one way or the other, I am simply asking the question to get to the bottom of the thought process of the government. Are you prioritising the needs of residents of the CBD as opposed to residents who would live within 60 metres of what I would imagine to be live music venues in suburban areas?

To me, the expectation would be for a CBD resident, that there would be an expectation of a level of noise that comes with living in the CBD. As you have just articulated well, we expect that of CBDs, to be vibrant, happening places where there will be loud music and other vibrant activities from time to time. Would it not then make even more sense that live music venues outside of the CBD, where perhaps residents are less likely to expect those sorts of things—although it could be argued, as was articulated earlier with your reference to the Airport, that people are aware of where these things existed previously. However, I am trying to understand why the CBD is special but the rest of Adelaide is not.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Self-evidently, the CBD stands apart from suburban life. The reason why we were quite deliberate in the map is because that is the area where you are most likely to get two things coinciding together: live music and live music that plays into the life of the night and, simultaneously, greater densities of student accommodation and other residential apartment living as well.

If you look at the City of Adelaide's plan and you look at the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan discussion paper, they anticipate the CBD accommodating more people. The reason why this is important is because postwar we had 47,000 people living in the city approximately, and we got down to 22,000 in the late eighties, and it has now gone up to 28,000.

The CBD is the one area of Adelaide that has a somewhat normal rental vacancy rate because of the supply of apartments. We want to see the supply of apartments continue. We want to see the supply of student accommodation continue because it takes the pressure off private rental markets, but you have to be able to accommodate the life and culture of the city, which is by its nature different to a suburban setting at the Ramsgate Hotel, which has a level of zoning and is covered by the Liquor Licensing Act and, in most of those circumstances, it does not require additional legislative focus.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I will be even more direct then, minister. I can think off the top of my head that down at Glenelg we have the Stamford Grand, The Moseley hotel, and The Pier hotel all within the space of roughly 200 metres. You have zoning changes that were brought in by the Rau regime to significantly increase building heights through Adelphi Terrace and other streets through the Glenelg Moseley Square precinct that allowed for student accommodation building, amongst other things. Was there any consideration given to Glenelg in preparing this map, or was it simply construed only to the CBD?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The name of the bill is about protecting the Crown and Anchor Hotel. That is its focus, and so by its nature this bill was focused on the city, and on the CBD. The matters that the member referred to—you can go all the way back; I think the Olsen government first rezoned the foreshore. I can remember all sorts of fears about that, none of which have really come to pass. That is a lively, vibrant place, that has a lot of restaurants. I think it is actually quite a good development. I think that was a good decision of the Olsen government.

I think, generally, density and mixed-use developments—and we are about to look at the West End Brewery, which is absolutely going to kick off that sort of development down there. If you have mixed-use developments you tend to have more lively precincts, more passive surveillance. People feel safer and so they are happier to go out at night and the like. All of that brings life and good amenity to an area.

In this case, for the CBD, we do think that the Minister for Planning needs some bespoke powers for the city but, outside of that, generally what you find is that these areas—I will check, but I do not think I have ever had a single piece of correspondence about Glenelg and the nightlife there.

Mr COWDREY: Check Henley.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am happy to check Henley, too. Henley is a terrific place.

Mr COWDREY: I am happy to make this very quick contribution now or at the third reading, whichever is easiest: just to make a request of the minister that any questions taken on notice to please be provided before the bill makes its way for consideration in the other house, if you are happy to take that on board. My understanding is, from communication with your office, that we are proposing for the normal process to take place from here where it sits on the Notice Paper over in the other place for the normal period of time. So I would appreciate if you are able to provide those answers in a sensible timeframe.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We will endeavour to do that for the opposition.

Clause passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (19:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.