Development Assessment Regulations

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That the regulations, made under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 concerning development assessment made on 27 June and laid on the table of this council on 2 July 2019, be disallowed.

(Continued from 27 November 2019.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (19:54): I will be speaking to this motion extremely briefly because it is identical to a motion that I have already moved and spoken to in this place. We will be supporting this motion. Our comments are already on record, so I will not repeat them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (19:55): It is a great pleasure to be here. 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 the system in improving livability, economic growth and competitiveness cannot be underestimated and it is important that it is introduced without undue delay.

The parliament determined these reforms provided the basis of our long-term planning, establishing new requirements, processes, procedures and roles for those involved, including parliament. Many elements of the new system are already operational, including the State Planning Commission, the Community Engagement Charter, the State Planning Policies, the first phase of the Planning and Design Code, the new assessment regulations and the Accredited Professionals Scheme.

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 (outback areas), with the code to be fully implemented by 1 July 2020. The government is committed to the delivery of this important reform. It is critical the new system commences as quickly as possible. Ongoing improvements in the enhancements to the system can then springboard off a solid foundation.

These regulations, which the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC seeks to have this council disallow, provide the critical regulatory environment for development assessment in this state. Importantly, prior to drafting these regulations, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure released a discussion paper, entitled Assessment Pathways: How Will They Work?, which sets out a range of proposals in relation to the new assessment scheme.

Following feedback on the discussion paper, a draft set of regulations was released for formal public consultation, and amendments were made to the regulations in response to the submissions. Details of what was heard and how the regulations were amended in response to the consultation are available on the SA Planning Portal.

The proposed motion to disallow the entire content of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Development Assessment) Variation Regulations 2019 seeks to throw away some of the 179 pages of critical regulations which allow the state's development assessment system to operate.

These regulations are already in operation in outback areas of South Australia and will commence operation in regional areas in April 2020 before applying to the whole of South Australia in July 2020. To disallow these regulations would effectively bring South Australia's development assessment system to a halt. The 30 applications currently under assessment in outback areas across South Australia would also be brought to a standstill.

These applications include a large-scale horticultural development, water filtration systems, new jetty infrastructure, alterations and additions to health clinic facilities, toilet facilities, viewing platforms, residential and workers' accommodation, residential housing, a maintenance shed, pontoon facilities, the installation of outdoor gym equipment, the construction of a steel processing and galvanising plant, a 14.8-hectare expansion of a rubble borrow pit for construction of important road infrastructure (road infrastructure in regional South Australia that was neglected for 16 years by the previous Labor government), the construction of telecommunications facilities, the construction of a desalinisation plant and associated infrastructure, and a 200-kilowatt solar plant. I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell would loathe to see a renewable energy project stalled unnecessarily as a result of political pointscoring.

The honourable member has stated that he wishes to disallow the regulations because the new planning system is, in his view, a dog's breakfast. In his view, there are problems with their heritage system and some errors in relation to maps, zones and height provisions. The honourable member says that in his opinion the government has not taken into consideration issues raised by the Labor Party, the Greens or community groups over the past few months. To the contrary, the government continues its extensive and comprehensive consultation on the new planning system and has and will continue to take into consideration the valuable feedback we have received on the Planning and Design Code as we move ahead towards full implementation by 1 July 2020.

The honourable member's motion to disallow these regulations, to send a shot across the bow in the midst of extensive consultation on the exact matters he takes issue with, is reckless. His reason to create havoc within the department is, quite frankly, a spiteful attack on the hardworking public servants who are working hard to deliver the most significant planning reform in South Australia in over 20 years.

Rather than articulate his issues via formal submissions to the State Planning Commission through the consultation period, he seeks to join forces with the Labor Party and take a nuclear approach to disallow the regulations currently in force. This nuclear approach to disallow regulations is being used right now for the proper and fair assessment of planning applications in outback South Australia.

Should these regulations be disallowed, new developments could not be lodged and the aforementioned planning applications could not be assessed or approved. It will prevent homeowners from undertaking minor developments on their land, not even a garden shed or a verandah. It will mean that state agencies can no longer build essential infrastructure for the people of South Australia.

This motion by the honourable member is reckless, misconceived and dangerous. The government's position is that the development assessment regulations are sound. They have been based on extensive consultation with practitioners, councils, developers, agencies and the community, and have sought to balance the interests of all stakeholders to achieve a fair and efficient development assessment system for all South Australians. We absolutely oppose the disallowance motion on the strongest possible grounds, and encourage all honourable members to do the same.

The role of an accredited professional surveyor is established through the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited Professionals) Regulations 2019. The Development Assessment Regulations subsequently prescribe cases where an accredited professional surveyor can act as a relevant authority. Accredited professionals who are qualified land surveyors would be able to assess land division applications for planning consent but only where such a land division is deemed to satisfy under the code.

These deemed-to-satisfy applications must satisfy clear, numeric criteria and reflect anticipated development in the relevant zone. There are very limited cases where this is applied under the Planning and Design Code released by the State Planning Commission for public consultation. It is important to note that while an accredited professional surveyor could grant planning consent to deemed-to-satisfy land divisions, land division consent would still be required for these applications requiring assessment by the relevant council's assessment manager. This will ensure that technical infrastructure and servicing requirements are still considered by government bodies before full development approval can be granted.

The time frame within which a decision must be made on an application, which is regulation 53—I think the honourable member wants to disallow them all—has been based on the time frames prescribed in the Development Act 1993 as well as baseline data on current assessment time frames. The regulations have adopted the recommendations from submissions to base time frames on business days and provide additional time when notification, agency referral or a panel meeting is required.

A 20-day business day baseline period has been prescribed for performance assessed applications. This time frame reflects current system indicator data, as reported in the annual report on the administration of the Development Act 2017-18, which demonstrates that it currently takes a median of approximately 18 business days to determine a category 1 merit application, which is procedurally similar to a performance assessed application when notification is not required.

The 20-business day period only applies for simple performance assessed applications. Where referral is required or where notice of the application must be given or where an assessment panel is the relevant authority, the time frame will then increase to 40 to 70 business days. All time frames will be monitored as the new planning system is implemented to ensure that the prescribed time frames achieve efficiency but do not jeopardise the ability of an authority to undertake a proper assessment.

With those words, I indicate that we will be opposing the disallowance and urge all members not to throw these regulations out in the reckless and nuclear manner that the honourable member proposes.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:04): Again, I shall be brief because I am sure the members here have tired of hearing my voice. Them are fighting words and provocative words from the Hon. David Ridgway aimed at the Hon. Mark Parnell—words like 'having a nuclear approach' and all sorts of things about this planning code.

In public forums that I have attended, this new code has been under intense scrutiny and has caused quite a bit of consternation in our community, particularly in areas like Norwood and St Peters and Gawler. The other night, I had the pleasure of being at the Colonel Light Gardens RSL in the Colonel Light Gardens garden city, which is only a stone's throw away from where I live. There were probably about 200 people who attended that meeting, quite concerned and quite confused about what this code is all about.

On the night, the consensus was that what is on the website and how it has been explained is little more than confusing gobbledygook. It has caused people concern. In the Colonel Light Gardens suburb, they are particularly worried about their very unique garden city. I do not know how many of you have actually been through Colonel Light Gardens.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, please allow the member to speak.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Hon. David Ridgway certainly lives near Colonel Light Gardens.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Closer than you, Frank.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, not at all.

The PRESIDENT: This is not a conversation. Allow the member to finish his speech.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In fact, Mr President, I make a point every night of driving down King William Road, down Victoria Avenue and across Cross Road to deliberately go through Colonel Light Gardens because I think it is one of the most beautiful suburbs, not only in South Australia but also in Australia. It is very unique, the design is very unique, based on the old English garden city concept. You will not find another suburb like this probably anywhere in the world. The people zealously guard what they have there. What they fear are developers who could actually encroach, come in and just ruin the ambience that they have.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Who convened the meeting?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Who convened the meeting? The meeting was actually convened by the residents of Colonel Light Gardens. There were people who spoke at that meeting who know that suburb intimately and have studied it. Again, as I said, there is concern that these unique heritage suburbs, these unique heritage homes, would be under threat under this code, which people are still trying to come to grips with. Even town planners in city councils like Norwood and St Peters and Gawler are finding it difficult to grapple with it.

There were over 200 people at the meeting at Colonel Light Gardens the other night. They expressed their concern about what was going on. They feel that what they have is actually being threatened. It is the same in Norwood and St Peters and Gawler. Of course, some of the issues also surround the contributory items in some of these areas.

The Hon. Mark Parnell has extensive experience and background in planning. For him to be attacked by the Hon. David Ridgway in such a manner—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You have been here five minutes. I do it every year.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, I know. The Hon. Mark Parnell certainly has extensive experience in this, and I am certain that he has studied what has been released and appropriately he is showing concern by introducing this disallowance motion. With that, SA-Best will support this disallowance motion.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:09): I rise to sum up the debate, and in doing so I thank the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Frank Pangallo for their contributions. The Hon. David Ridgway's contribution is not unexpected, but I think that in some of the words that he used he repeated some things that I have said, like 'shot across the bow'. Rather than just repeat those words, I would urge the government to reflect on how they are managing this planning system.

Even today, in earlier items on our agenda, we had the Hon. Clare Scriven referring to submissions that had been made by a number of country councils in the Mid North and Yorke Peninsula. Because we are short of time, I have not read all the submissions out. The LGA has also expressed grave concerns. I, at a personal level, have been poring through these planning documents, and I am finding mistake after mistake, which says to me that the government has not listened to what the community has been saying. There is a lot of work that still needs to be done. Whilst the Hon. Mr Ridgway says that this is going to destroy their critical regulatory environment, and he talks about these applications in the outback that he says will now evaporate, that is just not true—that is just not true.

What would have been true is if we had done this after the planning and design code phase 3 had come into operation, which relates to the whole of the state. That would be a serious disruption. Instead, we have moved this disallowance motion now, and I am glad that it has the parliament's support.

As I said when I moved it, I fully expect the government will take these 179 pages and bung them back in the Government Gazette either tomorrow or next Thursday. That is what they will do, but at least then this parliament has the opportunity, when we resume after the prorogation, to have another look at the whole package of what the government is proposing. If we do not do this now—and I am glad we are going to be doing it—then we would remove from ourselves the power to actually influence how this planning system is panning out.

I got an email just a little while ago from one of the councillors from Norwood Payneham and St Peters, who showed me a map of the sneaky changes that have been made to their local area. In areas that currently have a lot of character dwellings, dominated by one and two-storey buildings, they have stuck six-storey zones all over the place. Every school is zoned for six storeys now in Norwood Payneham and St Peters. There is so much more work that needs doing and the government needs to stop just saying, 'It's my way or the highway' and stop trying to ram this stuff through. They need to settle down a little bit, listen to the genuine concerns that are being raised by local councils and by the community, and do this job properly.

The Hon. David Ridgway was not quite sure why some of his notes were relevant, but as I said before, this motion is identical to one that the Hon. Clare Scriven moved on behalf of the Labor Party. They raised different concerns to the ones that I have raised. The Hon. Terry Stephens had a similar motion, but again, that is a holding motion—I will admit that—on behalf of the Legislative Review Committee. As we know, that committee simply puts these on the agenda and then discharges them, and we never find out what it was that was holding them up and what their concerns were. The Legislative Review Committee process is a very suboptimal process.

This parliament is doing what the people elected us to do: standing up for the community, standing up for what the people of South Australia want for their future, and planning is so much of what our future is going to deliver, either good or bad. I am glad that we have secured the agreement of the Legislative Council tonight to disallow these regulations, and I say to the Hon. David Ridgway, 'We will see you back debating planning in this chamber again next year.'

Motion carried.