Statutes Amendment (Intensity of Development) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (01:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation incorporated into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

This is a relatively simple bill because of matters that have arisen in the Newland electorate as a result of some proposed developments. Gordon Avenue, a street within the Newland electorate in St Agnes, is a cul-de-sac. There are 27 dwellings on that street and on the same street there are two substantially large blocks. Most of the blocks of course are 800 square metres or 1,000 square metres. One block is 6,500 square metres and a second block is of a similar, if not slightly smaller, size. A proponent has purchased the 6,500 square-metre block and is proposing to build 24 dwellings on that block.

Those quick at maths will see that it is almost a 100 per cent increase in the number of houses on that street. They will also realise that there is still another very large, similarly sized block with scope for approximately the same number of dwellings to be built on top. Assuming everyone else does a two-for-one development on their blocks, as they might ordinarily be entitled to, you are starting to get to a point where you might have 100 dwellings on that small cul-de-sac in St Agnes, which was never intended to carry that many houses.

Currently, councils do not have the ability to look at a development, look at a street and assess the total number of dwellings in the event that all blocks were developed to the potential of the zoning in that area. This bill seeks to give councils the power to have a forward look, to essentially determine the carrying capacity of a street to see how that might be evenly and fairly spread across all landholders in a street, and then to make a decision on a proposed development on that basis. The first provisions of the bill seek to do that.

The second part seeks to clarify powers that already exist under the act. The act already gives councils the power to enforce decisions of the Development Assessment Commission, and that is not explicitly stated in the bill. The member for Newland's bill seeks to clarify this to ensure councils know they have the power to enforce conditions of the Development Assessment Commission decisions, and that they have their suite of powers, being able to do everything they would do to enforce the conditions of a decision they made. They also apply to Development Assessment Commission decisions. It is a relatively simple bill and I commend it to the house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (01:06): This is a curious bill. It has come to us late in the piece. I have discussed it with Mr Kenyon in another place, and my reaction to him was that he has posed some good questions—questions that the planning system should deal with better than it does. When I say that he has posed good questions, one of those questions is that the nature of the planning system is that each individual application for development is assessed on its own merits and is rarely looked at in the overall context of: what does it mean for the neighbourhood or for the wider environment?

One thing this bill seeks to achieve is that those cumulative effects should be taken into account. The mechanism that he has chosen to use in this bill is that there are prescribed percentages of allotments and prescribed proportions of dwellings. If a developer comes along and is proposing a development whose intensity is greater than the prescribed proportion, which in this bill is 25 per cent, then there is a chance that the development will not be approved. The object of the exercise, according to the bill, is that development that would otherwise be appropriate in the zone can be rejected if the development would result in a greater intensity that is desirable for the district.

It is a shame the honourable member is not in this chamber to be able to answer questions, and I am not sure whether the minister is going to be of much assistance, but it struck me, as I was looking at it, that there is a major technical flaw in the bill—at least I think there is. It is something on which some further advice might need to be sought. Mr Kenyon, when he introduced the bill in the lower house, talked about applications for large numbers of allotments or large numbers of houses being thrust upon a street that is not able to cope with that intensity of development.

It seems to me that the loophole is that if a developer, rather than carving up, for example, a six-hectare lot into 30 or 40 smaller allotments, if they staged their development and kept the number of allotments below the threshold, which in this is 25 per cent, then they could lodge an application for 10 allotments, and then they could come back a week later and lodge another application for another 10 allotments and then another 10 allotments.

Looked at individually, none of those would infringe the bill, as I understand it, and therefore the whole purpose of the bill would be undermined. I might have the wrong end of the stick with that, but that is my quick understanding of how it might work. I think there are some serious problems with it but, as I said to Mr Kenyon, he has asked the right question, I am just not convinced he has the right answer. I will be guided, in part, by what other members say.

One test for bills is: does the bill do good? Another test is: does it do harm? And if a bill has loopholes that you can drive a truck through, then maybe it will do no harm because people will get around it anyway, but then we have to ask ourselves whether that is the smartest thing to be doing, to be passing legislation that effectively can be so easily undermined.

I am prepared to admit that I may have misunderstood it, but putting on my lawyer hat—how would I get around this measure—I think a staged development would possibly undermine the intent of the bill. If the minister has any answers to those questions that might assist us in progressing the bill tonight.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (01:10): I rise to make some remarks in relation to the bill which has come from the House of Assembly. At the stage when it was addressed by our spokesperson, the member for Unley, he indicated support, which we still do provide for this. Notwithstanding some particular concerns that we have, we are sympathetic to the concept of it.

The bill essentially is attempting to make some assessment of what the carrying capacity is of particular areas and has arisen in respect of a specific development in the promoter's electorate. I can understand the concerns that have arisen that there could be a large number of dwellings located on sites that would be inappropriate. I have to say that I am surprised that there are not instruments under the planning process that could already address this, whether they are through zoning or other areas.

I think it is a bit rich of a government member to be promoting a bill in relation to this, given what particular communities in Liberal electorates have just undergone through the major development status that the government supported for Life Care for its aged-care facilities, where they clearly had developments that were much larger in scale than the adjoining properties. We do support the concerns in this particular area. However, we have received amendments which have just been filed today by the government.

The government is well aware that our process is that we have a joint party meeting every Monday and any amendments need to be considered at that and, therefore, they would have had to provide those to us prior to that meeting—the week before—in order for us to be able to give them due consideration and do our own due diligence. It is hard to see that the bill can progress under those circumstances because these just have not been given adequate notice; but we are supportive of the general concept of the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway.