Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2019.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:46): I rise to support this bill. The Labor opposition has not come to this position lightly or without due consideration of the content of the draft Planning and Design Code. It is for this reason that it is important to note what this council is actually considering today.

This bill does not reject the structure of the new planning system, introduced by the former Labor government. Nor does this bill reject the concept or mechanics of a Planning and Design Code. The bill merely provides the Minister for Planning with the discretion to delay the complete implementation of the Planning and Design Code beyond 1 July 2020, the date currently set for phase 3 of the code's implementation for councils in metropolitan Adelaide and regional centres.

This is an important point to make because it clarifies what the Labor opposition is actually supporting today. The opposition wants to provide the minister with the discretion to delay the complete implementation of the Planning and Design Code because the policies included, or indeed not included, in it represent the most comprehensive review of our state's planning system in a generation.

As the State Planning Commission is fond of reminding us, the Planning and Design Code will replace the 72 development plans which currently set the rules for what can be developed and where developments can occur across the state. The code will consolidate more than 1,500 zones into 55 zones, and it will introduce an online e-planning system, promising major efficiencies and a simplification of the development application process.

This is a major reform with potentially major ramifications for our state's built form and environment if the transition to the new system is carried out prematurely. Regrettably, however, what the Labor opposition is hearing from across the state from community members and stakeholders alike is that the draft Planning and Design Code is riddled with errors, omissions and poorly conceived policy changes. Communities and stakeholders are extremely apprehensive about the impending implementation of the code and the effect it will have on our state's built environment.

The government and the State Planning Commission have both acknowledged that there are errors and omissions in the code. They have acknowledged, for instance, that some zones are incorrectly applied, or not applied at all, that many policy statements are yet to be drafted, and that in its draft form the online e-planning tool cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information about the planning rules which apply in a particular locality. But the answer from both the government and the State Planning Commission remains, 'Trust us, it will be alright by the time the code is implemented.'

The Labor opposition does not doubt the sincerity of those intentions. We do not doubt the reassurances of the State Planning Commission chairperson that there is a talented group of young professionals working hard in the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) developing the code and integrating this policy work into an online, spatial e-planning tool.

However, these reassurances may not be enough. South Australian councils have identified that many of the errors included in the code have resulted from a lack of a consultation with councils in its development. These include errors in zoning as well as flood and hazard mapping. Indeed, the LGA has argued that the many areas included have made it hard for councils to determine whether what they have identified in the code is an error, an oversight or a policy change.

The LGA has also identified that many useful policy tools used by councils in the development plans to protect the built form character of their communities have not been transferred across to the Planning and Design Code. These include desired character statements as well as policies concerned with significant trees, acid sulphate soils, flood management and other hazard management policies.

The LGA therefore argues—alongside many individual submissions from councils, I might add—that an extended public consultation process is needed to iron out these identified errors and omissions and that a more consultative approach should occur, which includes working side by side with councils to ensure the accuracy of the policy detail transferred from development plans.

Many other organisations concerned with the preservation of our state's heritage, character, built form and environment are also apprehensive about the implementation of the Planning and Design Code. Like many councils they do not believe the development of the code has reflected the principles of the act's Community Engagement Charter, which was established to ensure genuine and fit-for-purpose consultation when developing planning instruments.

In alliance with many councils and heritage experts, many residents' associations—organised under the umbrella of Community Alliance SA—also oppose the abolition of contributory items under the Planning and Design Code. These stakeholders doubt that the demolition controls included in the Historic Areas Overlay will provide as rigorous protection for contributory items as currently exist under many council development plans.

Moreover, now that the government has reconvened the Expert Panel on Planning Reform to report before Christmas on the demolition protections currently applied to contributory items, the tight time frame for public consultation on the code becomes unworkable. How are stakeholders and community groups supposed to respond to the expert panel's findings and recommendations and conduct their own internal deliberations before the consultation period expires in February next year?

Today, I have received, via the shadow minister in the other place, a letter from the Legatus Group. The letterhead says that the member councils include the Adelaide Plains Council, Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, the Copper Coast Council, the District Council of Barunga West, the District Council of Mount Remarkable, the District Council of Orroroo Carrieton, the District Council of Peterborough, Light Regional Council, the Northern Areas Council, Port Pirie Regional Council, the Regional Council of Goyder, the Barossa Council, The Flinders Ranges Council, Wakefield Regional Council and Yorke Peninsula Council. That is certainly a significant part of our state.

They have forwarded a motion that has been endorsed, and I will highlight a couple of the most relevant factors within that. The first is that the eight-week consultation period for phase 2 councils has been insufficient to enable feedback on the new Planning and Design Code and its implementation considering, they say, the significant policy changes in the code compared with current development plans. Some of the feedback that member councils provided was as follows:

no insights into the software DPTI planned to use;

the number of mistakes with the transfer of information from individual development plans;

the lack of interest in how things might be different for regional councils from DPTI over the past 12 to 18 months;

that there are over 2,000 pages of code that need to be read, digested and understood;

that the community consultation section referred to here was attended by only seven people, perhaps partly because it was advertised (I am advised in here) once in one newspaper; and

the wholesale rezoning of the council district without any meaningful community consultation.

I think that is very relevant feedback from the Legatus Group that covers so many of the council areas of our state. It should also be noted that criticisms about the content of the Planning and Design Code are not limited to representatives of community organisations and councils.

Planning consultants contracted by developers are also apprehensive about the implementation of the Planning and Design Code. They have been frustrated by the difficulties navigating and attempting to discern the policy content of the Planning and Design Code through an incomplete e-planning tool and the plethora of documents one must wade through to determine the applicable policies for a particular location.

They have expressed dissatisfaction that much of the policy content is yet to be drafted. Most of all, developers are nervous that the premature implementation of the Planning and Design Code will mean long, drawn-out court proceedings to interpret the rules under the new system. In fact, I am advised that one prominent law firm was heard remarking at a recent Planning and Design Code briefing session:

Don't be surprised if you go into your local BCF store and you can't find any picnic blankets or supplies, because I would have bought them all for the massive lawyers' picnic which will accompany the implementation of the Planning and Design Code.

A lawyers' picnic—that about sums it up. This important planning instrument, which will set the rules for development in this state, is currently set, by statute, to be fully implemented on a date that is very likely to prove premature.

This bill is providing the government and the minister with an opportunity to avoid this risk, and to implement the Planning and Design Code when it is truly ready, after appropriate consultation with affected stakeholders. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:56): The 1 July 2020 date was enshrined in legislation to provide all stakeholders with confidence that the new planning and development system would be delivered in a timely fashion. The Expert Panel on Planning Reform identified a number of deficiencies within the existing planning system that were holding our state back in terms of productivity, competitiveness and fairness.

In response to the many recommendations of the expert panel, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 sought to deliver a much-needed contemporary and competitive planning system for South Australia. The importance of this system in improving liveability, economic growth and competitiveness cannot be underestimated, and it is important that it is introduced without undue delay.

The parliament determined that these reforms provided the basis of our long term planning, establishing new requirements, processes, procedures and roles for those involved, including the parliament. Many elements of the new system are already operational, including the State Planning Commission, Community Engagement Charter, State Planning Policies, the first phase of the Planning and Design Code and the new assessment Regulations and an Accredited Professionals Scheme. All have been delivered within the agreed time frames.

The commission is now working to deliver the Planning and Design Code ('the code') by 1 July 2020. The code has already commenced operation in land not within council areas—that is, the outback area—with the code to be fully implemented by 1 July 2020.

The code's zoning and policies for all of South Australia have been on consultation since 1 October 2019. This consultation period has involved a range of community events in regional areas, as well as detailed meetings with mayors, council CEOs, elected members and staff. Consultation events in metropolitan areas will commence in November and run through to February 2020.

This is an ambitious program of work, establishing the code while also delivering the electronic solution for the code and development application processing; however, careful planning has been undertaken to support its successful delivery. It should be stressed that 1 July 2020 is not the conclusion of the process; it marks the beginning. The first generation of the code seeks to consolidate and transition existing contemporary development plan policy.

There are some exceptions to where this policy reform is needed now, including improvements to policy guiding infill development, preservation of our heritage and character, policies for value-adding to rural South Australia, and clearer rules for renewable energy projects.

From here, the opportunities to advance the interests of the state really begin. Better policy, real and effective participation, faster and skilled decision-making, and forward-looking planning—again, putting South Australia at the forefront of land planning and management.

The government is committed to the delivery of this important reform. It is critical that the new system commences as quickly as possible. Ongoing improvements and the enhancements to the system can then springboard off a solid foundation. It is for these reasons that we do not support a bill that provides uncertainty around the time frames for the delivery of the code and would diminish our ambitions for the state.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:00): I rise to say that SA-Best will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:00): I am not going to take any time in summing up, other than to thank the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Frank Pangallo for their contributions. It is clear that the bill has the support of the chamber. I am delighted about that, and I would just say that this bill does not set a new date for the implementation of the Planning and Design Code. It simply gives the minister the ability to set one if it is required—and as the Hon. Clare Scriven has put on the record, a number of people are saying that already. The minister can have this bill sitting in his back pocket next year and can see if he needs to proclaim it. I look forward to his letter of thanks when he decides he really does need it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 18:02 until 19:45.