Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Matters of Interest Planning and Design Code Planning and Design Code The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:52): I rise to make some remarks in relation to some planning and design issues that have been made of late and to point out the asymmetrical approach by this current government in particular when a local member of parliament disagrees with the minister and the government in relation to a zoning issue or a code amendment, as it is often known now, in their particular area. I say so as a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, which has a significant statutory role in terms of code amendments, in that the minister refers matters to us which we can consider agreeing to, not agreeing to, or recommending amendments to the minister. We have had several so far and those include some of the new policy as a result of changes to the way the act is operating in relation to developer-led amendments, but there are three in particular that I would like to highlight. There was a matter to do with Mooringe Avenue, Plympton, zoning. That was a private-led code amendment process. The amendment was to change the zone to a maximum building height of three storeys, and to include in that the overlays that relate to affordable housing. The Environment Resources and Development Committee—and these are matters on the public record—made a decision to suggest some amendments, which were accepted by the minister, and I do not seek to reflect on the merits of those or otherwise because those are matters of deliberation by the committee. We also had a code amendment relating to the Riverbank Precinct, which was to fulfil the new Labor government's commitment to alter that zoning to fulfil its particular commitments and revert to what had existed previously in relation to an area known as Helen Mayo Park. That was something that was addressed by the committee as well and, again, I make no reflection upon that because that is a process for the committee. However, in relation to the Kidman Park residential mixed-use code amendment, there has been quite a diversion from the processes that have been considered previously. The member for Colton, Mr Matt Cowdrey OAM MP, has been fighting in the corner of the local residents on this particular amendment, on which he and the local residents believe they have not been listened to. There was information provided to the community in 2021 which indicated that there would be something along the lines of townhouse developments, two storeys, three storeys, and I am quoting from the proponents of that particular site: '[We don't] think the site is ultimately needed to contain apartments or other styles of higher-density development.' The City of Charles Sturt undertook a sponsored code amendment process and what had been envisaged as 250 dwellings on that site has now become something much larger and there is a significant diversion from the indicative layout that was provided to the community originally in favour of five four-storey high apartment blocks. The member for Colton has consistently championed what the locals have been seeking, which I think can be characterised as they are generally in favour of development of the site but do not agree with the large five-storey proposals, or four storeys for that matter. The member for Colton has said that it appears the government may be making up the rules as they go as this has been effectively endorsed by the minister. The member for Colton and some local residents came and made some representations to the Environment Resources and Development Committee but it was, unfortunately, very obvious that this code amendment is not going to be amended by the Labor Party and the wishes of the locals have been overruled.