ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: URBAN DENSITY

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:48): I move:

That the final report of the committee on urban density be noted.

As a member of the ERD Committee in this chamber I rise to make some comments on the tabling of the final report on urban density. As will be placed on the record in the other place by the chair, on 2 December 2010 the Environment, Resources and Development Committee on its own motion sought to inquire into the effects of increasing urban density in South Australia. At this time it was evident to the committee that there were concerns in some sections of the community about increasing urban density as a way to tackle urban sprawl, and we felt it appropriate, given the functions of this committee, that we examine the issue in more detail.

I think all honourable members would agree how timely is this inquiry, given the many emails, correspondence and media interest this issue generates. We all appreciate the interest in this area. Housing needs have changed greatly in the last 20 years, and it is important for us as a society to reflect on those needs, be they in the type and mix of housing or what has happened to our transport corridors and arterial roads. What is of great concern to people is that the changes are sympathetic to their surroundings, but the challenge is always to ensure that any compromises to be made are not of such threat to what people are prepared to accept. Nonetheless, change of course can be threatening to a lot of people.

The committee set itself broad terms of reference for the inquiry which was for the committee to inquire into and report on desirable social, health, environmental and economic outcomes of increased density, sustainable living in South Australia and appropriate strategies for achieving those outcomes. Given the interest in this inquiry at the public and political level, the chair will be placing on the record that the committee was keen to ensure that its investigation was able to explore more deeply the effects of increasing urban density.

Therefore, in addition to its terms of reference, we also included a comprehensive list of issues of interest that allowed the evidence to speak in detail to a wide array of topics. In total, the committee finalised 15 separate issues of interest. The list included the interplay between increasing urban density and other social issues such as demographic changes, health and lifestyle needs, public, community and affordable housing, and community engagement in the planning process, as well as covering elements relating to the impact of increasing urban density on the environment and implications for infrastructure planning.

The committee was provided with a wealth of information so that every issue of interest was sufficiently explored. In addition, the committee's site visits and external research ensured that the report which was laid on the table provided a comprehensive overview of urban density in South Australia. I also agree that, whilst the evidence and research considered in this report was diverse, there was however a shared and resolute consensus: South Australia does need to increase urban density in order to protect the lifestyle, environmental and productive assets of our state.

The committee understands that South Australia's changing urban landscape is an issue close to the hearts of many in this state. As I have already mentioned, there are some who are not entirely in agreement with the premise of increasing South Australia's urban density. The committee, nonetheless, welcomed all opinions throughout its inquiry. However, as the report explains, the evidence clearly shows that increasing urban density in this state is vital if we are to ensure vibrant, sustainable and affordable housing and livability options for the people of South Australia.

I believe that as a society we should exercise a collective social conscience to ensure that as many people as possible who face difficulties have the means to live their lives with dignity in affordable housing. It is imperative that any increase in urban density does have that good mix of housing options. What is interesting is that urban sprawl was consistently identified in the evidence as highly problematic and as perpetuating a range of problems from obesity and traffic congestion to housing affordability and poor utilisation of resources.

Increasing urban density, meanwhile, was acknowledged as a solution to many of these problems, but the committee heard that there are still misconceptions and apprehension in the community regarding this approach. To address this, a key recommendation stemming from the inquiry is for the government to engage in a widespread educational campaign to inform the community of the adverse effects of urban sprawl and the benefits of increasing urban density.

Those who are interested in this important issue may well have read the article in InDaily last week which made the observation that Adelaide's urban density has barely changed since 1981. Indeed, we are told that our rate of densification is the slowest of the six largest Australian cities, including Canberra. However, according to a local expert, the data may not represent a complete picture of what is going on in Adelaide. George Giannakodakis, the managing director of InfraPlan and vice-president of the Planning Institute of Australia, SA chapter, believes that by trying to take a general average of the entire city the data missed important nuances, especially the increasing density of the inner city in the last decade. Mr Giannakodakis dubbed it 'a tale of two cities'. He believes that, whilst Adelaide continues to expand its metropolitan boundary, at the same time density in the inner city is increasing.

Our planning minister, John Rau, pointed out that the government's recent changes to zoning around the city allow for a greater mix of housing options close to the CBD where services and infrastructure are already in place. I notice that several other prominent community members made comment as to our culture of large homes on our blocks which has, of course, been a long trend in South Australia.

Ultimately, as in all changes, people need to understand how the changes will work and how it affects them and the neighbourhood they live in. The committee ensured that it heard evidence on ways to facilitate more community engagement in the planning process and a range of ideas and principles were presented to us.

I am pleased to place on the record here, as will the chair in the other place, that two practical approaches which resonated with the committee and which have formed part of our recommendations were for the government to consider the use of development notices on sites to inform local residents of forthcoming changes and to engage in a public consultation process to identify vistas and site lines that are considered valuable by the community so that a planning strategy to protect them can be implemented. The committee was informed that this has been a successful process in London, Montreal and Vancouver.

Even when developments do not directly affect people, as in perhaps being next door, when one values their neighbourhood and is proud to be a member of it, being kept informed by a notice on site is good public relations and empowers that community. Similarly, people often buy because of the view and natural light that flows into their homes, and having that taken away does not augur well for public relations.

Another key recommendation includes that the government drafts a set of design principles based on best practice models which can be used as archetypical benchmarks to guide and assess positive examples of increased urban density. It became clear to the community that these principles need to encapsulate the essence of good design and allow for flexibility so that they do not operate as a set of prescriptive and unyielding criteria. With increasing urban density, apartment living is likely to become more common in Adelaide and, as such, the committee was keen to ensure that a range of lifestyle and liveability needs are catered for.

As a politician, I know from listening to a few concerns that strata living can throw up some problems when it comes to consensus decision-making. In order to facilitate this, the committee has recommended that government reviews the strata management system, examining ways to streamline the current legislation and consider establishing a conflict resolution agency specialising in property management.

The committee has also recommended that current restrictions, such as drying washing on balconies and pet ownership, be re-examined so they do not become deterrents to strata living. I believe there would be nothing worse than someone who has lovingly been a pet owner all their life having to give up that pet because of changed living circumstances. In many cities in the world pets are automatically allowed in restaurants and make wonderful companions for the elderly. I am certain we all know how therapeutic they can be. Indeed, many nursing homes know that and will often have a pet program for their residents. The fact that people choose to live in an apartment should not preclude them from owning a pet.

We heard evidence that in one Adelaide apartment the dog leash is left where everybody can use it to walk the dog. I am certain that the added benefit of exercise for the owner would not go astray either. Also, blocking out a section of the balcony so one cannot see through it, but still get good ventilation, is not difficult.

Again, as will be placed on the record by the chair in the other place, the committee was pleased to have heard from a broad spectrum of the community, from individuals and group representatives to academics, business people and planning experts. I am not surprised that the inquiry was able to attract so many participants and I add my thanks to those who provided their time and expertise to participate. They contributed crucial information and guidance to the committee and we are all appreciative.

I believe this inquiry to be a very important one and one which involves taking Adelaide to the next step in terms of growth. I know that all committee members will agree that, thanks to the quality of the information provided, the committee was able to draw informed conclusions and we are confident that the final 24 recommendations reflect the issues that arose in the evidence while balancing the diverse needs of the wider community.

I extend my thanks to fellow committee members for their contribution to this inquiry: the Presiding Member Ms Gay Thompson, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Tim Whetstone MP, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Mark Parnell in this chamber. I should also make mention that the Hon. Michael Atkinson was also a member of the committee until earlier this year, as was the Hon. Patrick Conlon for a short while and, of course, longstanding member Mr Ivan Venning MP, who was also a member of the committee when the reference actually commenced.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He was a former chairman.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think he was, in a former parliament; yes. Also, I would like to thank committee staff Phil Frensham, Debbie Bletsas, Susie Barber and Leah Skrzypiec for their assistance. As far as I am aware, Dr Skrzypiec wrote the final report for the committee, and I especially thank her and wish her the very best for her future.

I believe this report will positively contribute to the ongoing debate about South Australia's urban future and, like everyone else, I look forward to the minister's response. I commend the report to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.