Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council 30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the Greater Adelaide plan. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: Page 47 of the recently released draft of the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide highlights the challenge presented by the urban heat island effect, that is, localised warming related to an increase in the amount of paved and dark-coloured surfaces resulting from urban development. The report also notes that the effect of urban heat might be reduced by ensuring that there are sufficient green spaces within urban areas. The urban heat island effect increases water consumption by humans and increases water demand, and mitigating strategies also will take more water. However, there is no mention in the plan's draft policies of developing water options or green spaces in established areas (the areas which will suffer most from the urban heat island effect). The plan focuses on new developments and reducing water consumption. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Why does the plan not contain any policy for addressing the urban heat island effect in established areas? 2.	How does the government intend to reduce water consumption while still providing further open spaces to reduce the heat island effect? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for his question. Hopefully, shortly after question time today, after we have dealt with the Appropriation Bill, we will be dealing with the amendment to the River Torrens Linear Park bill which makes provision for a number of linear parks along the major creeks and waterways in the greater Adelaide area. As I indicated in summing up on that bill last night, it is compatible with the 30-year plan. It is one of the practical ways in which the government is seeking to implement the strategy of greenways. In addition, at the same time as launching the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide—and, of course, it is still subject to public consultation until the end of September—the government has also released detailed information on water sensitive urban design. That information, which is also compatible with the government's Water for Good strategy, is a very detailed set of guidelines for designing in the urban environment. Of course, the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide also sets out its goals for new development and new subdivisions. Retrofitting is a more complicated issue. Through the Water for Good plan, this government has set out those areas where you can re-use stormwater and have aquifer storage and recharge. The GHD report—a very significant geotechnical report that was the basis of the Water for Good strategy—has looked at where one can use aquifer storage and recharge. It is on that report that the government has updated the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy which, incidentally, the opposition seems to have based its policies—the state government's old Waterproofing Adelaide strategy which I think dates back to 2005. With all the additional information the government has had in its Water for Good strategy, as a result of a significant and comprehensive engineering survey, we now have much better information. All of that work and information on stormwater re-use, combined with the water sensitive urban design documentation, which was originally supported by the federal government—and I think the original grants go back to 2007 when this government received significant funds from the then federal government—has now been released to all local government areas. It is a very comprehensive, detailed strategy for getting the best water sensitive urban design. It is a very important part of our strategy. I remind the honourable member that one can require the best practice in new subdivisions much more easily than you can in existing subdivisions. One of the important parts of this government's strategy in trying to contain urban growth to within the current boundary (or at least 70 per cent of the growth within the boundary) is that as you get the turnover of housing—and most housing has a life of 40 or 50 years—you have the opportunity for bringing best practice into urban design. Many people argue that Adelaide should not grow because we cannot cope with the water requirements or we do not have a solution for energy use and other issues, but I think it needs to be pointed out that, the more you delay and freeze Adelaide, the less likely you are to get the turnover in buildings which will enable modern technology, better water practice, better energy practice, green buildings and so on to be introduced. I believe it is important that Adelaide should continue to grow and get redevelopment of our areas because, the more redevelopment we have, the better chance we have of getting greater energy and water efficiency into our buildings. I think that is an important point that needs to be made in this debate. The government, through the 30-year plan, is concentrating on transit-oriented developments. Anyone who goes to the briefings—and these will be rolled out increasingly by the department during the consultation period until the end of September—will see examples of some visual demonstrations about how along transport corridors, through the greening of those corridors, you not only make them more attractive but you make them quieter and cooler. So the greening along those corridors where the densest development will take place is a key part of that strategy. This government is well aware of the need to introduce better water and energy efficiencies throughout our suburbs, and it believes that the 30-year plan is the best way to do that. It has been very carefully thought out in terms of how to get the best value for our infrastructure dollar over the next 30 years. I certainly do not accept any criticism that the plan, and the planning of this government, does not adequately take into account the issues of water and energy efficiencies.