Dublin Local Code Amendment

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:28): Planning policy must balance the interests of residents and developers and ultimately be for the benefit of the entire community. Recently, I was contacted by concerned residents in Dublin who reached out to me about the proposed local code amendment. They did not believe they were getting answers to the questions they were asking. In response to those concerns, I held a community forum in Dublin on Sunday 24 November.

The people in Dublin and surrounding districts have every right to be sceptical about the proposed code amendment, given the history of development in their area. The people of Dublin are feeling disenfranchised and powerless, given the history of planning in that locality. They still remember the Integrated Waste Services' proposal under the Olsen government, which left a very bad smell. Dublin residents famously protested the dump with a range of public art.

The developer, Leinad, has asserted that their engagement has been robust, genuine and inclusive; however, this is not reflected in what I have been hearing from some parts of the community. There is too much jargon and not enough genuine engagement and explanation. It appears that the developer is seeking to do the bare minimum and get the proposal waved through by the council, albeit the Minister for Planning is the ultimate decision-maker.

A short period for consultation of two forums at 3pm to 5pm and 5pm to 7pm on a single weekday when people are working is not sufficient. Residents are asking the developer to act in good faith and ensure they get the detail they need and the time required to have an effective say. There is a sense that approval of this code amendment is a foregone conclusion and there is nothing they can do to ensure their concerns are heard and addressed.

The developer has downplayed the importance of council's role in consulting with and advocating on behalf of their residents. After all, in proponent-led code amendments, the community consultation process has been privatised, so local councils must be ever vigilant to ensure that the interests of the overall community are taken into account. There is lots of vision and nice ideas presented by the developer, but no guarantees or mechanisms in the code amendment that all the commitments will be carried out.

The plan is for a rezoning, but there has been little or no focus on the impact this will have on the community. There are currently no guarantees around infrastructure or costings for councils and ratepayers: for example, the cost of the buffer, road upgrades and water upgrades. This is why it is imperative that the local council, Adelaide Plains Council, undertakes its own consultation process. They are, after all, the only people elected to look after the interests of their residents and ratepayers. The developer in this code amendment process has tried to assert that there is no need for council to undertake their own consultation process—they would say that, would they not?

It is my strong view that councils have a role to play in consulting with and advocating on behalf of their communities. Quite rightly, residents want an extension of time and a guarantee that they will not be let down like they have been in the past. It is disappointing that the Adelaide Plains Council has decided to undertake no community consultation before deciding its view on the code amendment. Even more worryingly, council has decided to support the code amendment at a meeting last night prior to considering the infrastructure costs to the community. This decision sets a very worrying precedent which needs to be addressed, or residents and ratepayers could be effectively locked out of the proponent-led code amendment process.

We need to ensure that the planning system is robust and accessible to all if we are to prevent the loss of community confidence in it. If this happens, even good code amendments may be strongly opposed by the community. I would strongly urge both the council and the developer to rethink their positions. If changes to the planning policy regarding code amendments are required, so be it. If the current policies do not protect the rights of residents to be heard, and changes to the regulations are required, so be it. In the end, the social contract which exists between residents and governments at all levels must be honoured if we are to have a civil society.