HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Received from the Legislative Council and read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

On 19 June 2007 the Government announced the Planning and Development Review. The objective of the Review was to achieve the most competitive planning and development system in Australia and New Zealand, without compromising the liveability or sustainability of the State.

On 2 June 2008 the Government endorsed the recommendations of the Planning and Development Review and endorsed an implementation plan for those recommendations.

A key legislative change flowing from those recommendations is the Development (Planning and Development Review) AmendmentBill 2008.

This Bill is intended to establish a legislative framework to ensure the key elements of the Planning and Development Review (including an increase in the level of complying development) can be achieved.

In summary these elements relate to the following.

Red Tape

The Bill will facilitate a reduction in red tape across the South Australian planning system, which will result in a benefit of above $75.6 million to applicants and Local Government by realising savings:

to private citizens of about $16.6 million through a reduction in the time it takes to have basic renovations and basic house construction approved and completed (through a reduction in the interest paid on loans during the planning approval and construction processes);

to the industry of about $49.6 million through more timely approvals and $4.0 million through improved land re-zoning times, to enable the industry to better meet market demand, particularly when housing demand outstrips supply as is currently the case; and

to Local Government of approximately $5.4 million through a reduction in costs associated with administering the South Australian Planning system.

The reforms are also expected to deliver benefits to the following beneficiaries:

Applicants

The reforms will provide for a development code that will be a single document explaining how the assessment of residential development operates and setting clear performance standards for residential development. This reform should:

reduce the time taken to process applications in the merit and complying development categories from 17 weeks to 6 weeks (a 65 per cent reduction, or 11 weeks); and

provide estimated interest savings per application of between $1,576 and $5,517 for private investors and $16,500 for large commercial developments due to a reduction in the time taken to process development applications; and

Local Government

The reforms should allow councils to:

expand the range of complying development by converting 50-70 per cent of all merit-assessed residential applications to exempt, building rules consent only or complying development; and

provide administrative cost savings to councils of $5.4 million per annum (based on current activity levels).

The State

It is expected that the reforms will also:

lead to an approximate increase of $3.4 billion to $4.9 billion in Gross State Product (GSP) or 1.08 per cent to 1.51 per cent over the next five years (or approximately $689 million—$992 million per annum on average); and

lead to an opportunity cost saving of $62 million per annum by reducing total cost of stop the clock events each year. That is, based on the value of building works delayed each year, $62 million will be available to be invested elsewhere in the economy.

Finally, there are potentially a number of follow-on effects from minimising such delays. For applicants and builders this includes the introduction of more certainty and predictability into:

the construction labour market, where skills are highly sought after due to a shortage of these skills; and

construction contracts, by reducing any premium costs associated with the risks brought on by delay.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The measure will be brought into operation by proclamation.

3—Amendment provisions

This clause is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Development Act 1993

4—Amendment of section 33—Matters against which a development must be assessed

These amendments serve 2 purposes. New subsection (4a) of section 33 will provide a mechanism under section 33 to prescribe classes of development that will not need to be granted development plan consent. New subsection (4b) will provide that where a development only requires building rules consent and the council is the relevant authority, the council must issue a development approval if or when it issues the building rules consent.

5—Amendment of section 35—Special provisions relating to assessment against a Development Plan

These amendments relate to the assessment of complying development under section 35.

New subsection (1b) will provide that a development that is assessed by a relevant authority as being a minor variation from complying development may be determined by the relevant authority as complying development in any event and assessed accordingly.

New subsection (1c) will provide that if a proposed development meets all but 1 of the criteria for complying development, it must be assessed as such and the balance of the development will then be assessed as merit development. However, subsection (1d) will make it clear that subsection (1c) will not prevent a relevant authority from deciding not to grant development plan consent on account of its assessment of the balance of the development and under subsection (1e) this provision will not apply if the development, from an overall perspective, falls within a category of non-complying development.

6—Amendment of section 37—Consultation with other authorities or agencies

This amendment relates to cases where an application is refused, or conditions are imposed, on account of a direction of a prescribed body under section 37. Under the current provisions of the Act, the prescribed body is constituted as a party to any appeal. The amendment will provide that the prescribed body will be the respondent to any appeal and the relevant authority may, on application be joined as a party to the proceedings, if the relevant authority has been directed to refuse an application. If an appeal relates to a condition that has been imposed at the direction of a prescribed body, both the prescribed body and the relevant authority will be respondents to the appeal.

7—Amendment of section 38—Public notice and consultation

These amendments basically serve 3 purposes.

Firstly, it will now be possible for the regulations to assign various forms of development to Category 1 or Category 2 with the effect that the assignment by the regulations will prevail over any inconsistency with the relevant Development Plan unless the regulations provide otherwise.

Secondly, the regulations will determine which forms of development will be Category 2A (compared with the amendments made by section 10 of the Development (Assessment Procedures) Amendment Act 2007).

Thirdly, in the case of a Category 1 development, the Act will provide that the relevant authority must not, on its own initiative, seek the views of the owners or occupiers of other land in connection with deciding whether or not to grant or refuse development plan consent.

8—Amendment of section 39—Application and provision of information

The amendments will establish various rules associated with the extent to which a relevant authority may request information with respect to certain categories of development. Another amendment will 'stop the clock' for the time within which a decision on an application must be made by the relevant authority if the applicant requires additional time to address various issues associated with the application.

9—Amendment of section 41—Time within which decision must be made

An applicant will be able to serve a notice on a relevant authority that has not decided an application that relates to a development that is a complying development within the prescribed period. In such a case, it will be taken that the relevant authority has refused the application and, subject to the regulations, the relevant authority will be required to refund the application fee.

10—Amendment of section 88—Powers of Court in determining any matter

This is a consequential amendment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: I have counted the house and, as an absolute majority of the whole number of members is not present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:07): The way in which this house works is interesting. The minister comes in here, seeks the leave of the house to have his second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without his reading it and gets leave of the house to do so. He then stands up and moves that the house pass the remaining stages of the bill forthwith. The minister did not inform me as lead speaker for the opposition that he intended to do that. If he had approached me, I may have suggested to the minister at that point that it would be appropriate for him to read the second reading explanation. It is a matter of process. We will debate all stages of this bill yet the minister has not had the courtesy to read the second reading explanation to the house. My colleagues, who are now reading the second reading explanation which has been handed out, will be expected to be on their feet in a few minutes to respond to the government's second reading explanation. I make that point about the process that the government is using.

I will make a few more comments about the process in relation to this particular bill. My understanding is that there was undue haste with the parliamentary process in the other place late last year in relation to this bill. In fact, the other house had to sit an extra day in the optional sitting week in order to complete this bill because the government introduced it very late, apparently, and then kept changing its mind about the residential code. The other place refused to proceed through all stages until it had what it believed was a final version of the residential code, before it would pass the bill through all stages.

Not only has the government displayed what I could only term extreme arrogance in the other place in the latter part of last year, but I think the government should reflect on the way that it handles the business of the house in this place as well and just reflect on what this parliament is about. I will continue on that theme for a few moments because this piece of legislation, an amendment to the development act, is actually a piece of enabling legislation.

It is a piece of legislation that allows for the establishment of a residential code. It is designed to streamline the planning and development process, and the opposition supports that. However, many times in this chamber, I have raised the issue of making law through regulations. That is what this legislation does. It makes law by enabling regulations, and they are not simple regulations.

I can understand the principle. In some instances, you would have the power of regulations for day-to-day administrative things, and there are plenty of them. Notwithstanding that I do not enjoy the parliament not having a say in those matters, I think it is a bad way to govern the state where the parliament absolves itself from its responsibility to oversight the laws that govern this state, and that is what we do when we give powers to make extensive regulations and regulations on important matters.

Notwithstanding that regulations are a disallowable instrument and notwithstanding that the parliament has the opportunity to review them, I would wager that the vast majority of members of this house and the other place do not consciously review regulations as they are tabled from time to time. I know the shadow ministers—my colleagues—pick up the regulations and we have a look at them. I know that the Legislative Review Committee has a look at them.

As members of parliament, we absolve ourselves on a regular basis from being responsible for the laws that we foist upon the citizens of this state by passing this sort of legislation and handing the power to make law by regulations to the minister and, by and large, I would argue, to the bureaucracy.

I see my role, to some extent, as protecting the citizens of South Australia from the bureaucracy, because their interests are not necessarily in the same place. The bureaucracy has a large interest in ensuring that the administration of the department that it is involved in is simple and straightforward. There is nothing wrong with that, but that does not necessarily always serve the same interest as the community's.

We, as members of parliament, are somewhere between the community and the bureaucracy. I think that our responsibility actually lies in protecting the community from adverse impacts, and we can name any number of them. All of us regularly get complaints from constituents about the way an overenthusiastic bureaucracy has impacted on individuals. In a way, I am glad that my colleague the member for Stuart is not here, because I am sure that he would be able to embellish a number of stories reflecting the point I am making.

Mr O'Brien: I'm not sure I would use the word 'embellish'.

Mr Griffiths: Even though it would take some encouragement to stand up.

Mr WILLIAMS: Without the encouragement that, it is suggested, he needs from time to time. Notwithstanding what I have said, the opposition supports this bill. In fact, it reflects the very position that the opposition put out almost 12 months ago to streamline the planning process. I was involved in local government way back in the mid-1980s when local government first became the planning authority and we first went down the path of establishing plans over the council areas and going through all the process of working out how we were going to manage, control and, indeed, approve development at the local council level. We have come a long way.

I suggest that for most of the period between, I think, 1985 or 1986—somewhere around there, maybe even a little earlier—when I first became experienced with planning and development control and until this piece of legislation, the planning system has become more and more complicated. It has become more and more onerous and there have been more and more hurdles to jump, and that comes with a cost. It comes with a cost largely caused by delay, but it also comes at the direct cost of proponents of development having to go out and get expert advice, having to employ planners and lawyers to ensure that they jump all those hurdles in the minimum of time.

There has been a huge amount of discussion over the years about the problems with the planning system and whether there is corruption within the planning system. It is—to put it quite simply, and to use the sort of language I would use at home—somewhat of a dog's breakfast, and has been for some time.

I know that there is conflict between the state government and local councils. From time to time I hear ministers from governments of all persuasions say that the best way for democracy to work is to have decisions made as close as possible to the impact of those decisions. I guess that is why local councils have been the planning authority for so long.

What we are doing here is shifting the goalposts somewhat and lessening the influence of local councils on planning decisions. That seems to be the way that this government is going per se with regard to planning and development in this state. Quite often developments get major development status, which puts those developments into a different system and removes the local council from the decision-making process.

Under this bill, the state can, in many cases or situations, override the local council. In fact, there are clauses in this bill that actually state that, if there is a conflict between what the state wants to happen with regard to a development and the way it is assessed and what the council wants, it is the state that prevails. As I said, the opposition accepts that.

My colleague the Hon. David Ridgway in the other place has spent a lot of time on this matter. I am not going to take too much of the time of the house because most of the issues that the opposition initially raised were addressed by the government in the other place in the latter part of last year. There were a number of issues, and I know that the Hon. David Ridgway has been working closely with people in the industry, the Housing Industry Association, the Property Council, developers, etc., on this piece of legislation. It was debated thoroughly in the other place and I am happy to say that the opposition was delighted that the government took on board virtually all the concerns it had and amended the code.

It was interesting that, within a 24-hour period during the debate in the other place, the draft code went from version 7 to version 10. That is why I made those comments earlier about the haste with which the government was going through this process, and that caused a fair bit of difficulty for our colleagues in the other place, being under that pressure with continual changes.

Notwithstanding that, I think that the work that the opposition wanted to put into this bill to make it a much better piece of legislation and to meet the needs of the industry that is going to be impacted by it has been done in the other place. So, I indicate to the house that, at the moment, I have no interest in going into a third reading debate. I do not know whether any of my colleagues or anyone on the government side have, but I doubt it very much.

What currently happens is that developments are lodged with the council and are judged on their merits, and a significant proportion of development applications that go into the council are fairly mundane and straightforward. This piece of legislation effectively says that if you are building something that has already been built by every other householder in your street and around the corner—basically, across a suburb—then why on earth should we go through all the red tape and pain of the exercise of reapproving it in the way that we have, a way that is long, drawn-out and, as I pointed out earlier, costly.

The bill will enable the residential code to be established by regulation, and the residential code will basically say to the developer that, if their application meets all the criteria, if it is within what the code says it should be—the setbacks are the right distance from the front of the block, the impact on the neighbours because of the setbacks, or the distance away from the fence, or the height of the building adjacent to the fence—if all those sorts of things are all met and the boxes all ticked, it is virtually automatic approval.

I believe that what will occur is that, in a lot of those instances, where people are putting up, say, one of those sun shades in their backyard, or even a garage or those sort of outbuildings, those sorts of developments will, by and large, be designed to meet the code and will get virtually automatic approval. The application will be lodged, the boxes will be ticked, and it will be approved.

I imagine that even in cases of new developments—say, building a new house—the design of the house will largely be made to ensure that it also meets the code. So, even if you are redeveloping a block—or, in the case of urban infill, even if you are establishing two townhouses where there was a bungalow on a block in one of the inner suburbs—the developer, through this legislation, would be encouraged to pick up the code, look at it, look at his block, and actually plan his development so that it meets the code. That will save those weeks and weeks of going through the process of having it assessed by council and assessed by the development assessment panel, when he might have to wait six to 10 weeks to get an answer.

We accept not only the principle of what has been established through this legislation, but we also (and as I said, a considerable amount of work was done in the other place) accept the code. I think the final one we got was version 10. We take the minister at his word that, if the legislation goes through the house as he proposed it, that will be the final word on the code; that that is how it will be.

I have no doubt that as we move forward there will be amendments to the code, there will be additions and subtractions from time to time. I understand that the Local Government Association has been trialling the code in a few council areas to see exactly how it works in the field. That was part of the government's consultation process, and hopefully it gave the government the opportunity to iron out the teething problems that always come up with a new process and that the code's application will run relatively smoothly as from 1 March (which is, I think, from when the government intends to have this in operation). Hopefully, it will have an easy introduction and will run smoothly and achieve its ends.

As I said, I have no doubt that there will be amendments, that whoever is in government from time to time will find ways to streamline it even further and that there will be amendments made. Harking back to my earlier comments, I certainly hope that, when amending regulations, members will take the time to closely scrutinise any such amendments.

I represent a largely rural electorate, where development matters do not often receive the sort of public attention they do in some city electorates. My colleague the member for Unley is not in the chamber, but I know that he and his predecessor get very excited about development matters in their area. I note that the code will allow for areas to be declared exempt from this process. So, in areas such as Unley, where a council may deem, under its development plan, that an area is of significant heritage or has a heritage flavour, the merit-based system of development approval will continue. I point out that the pre-existing system will continue to run in parallel with this.

I know that the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, when introducing the matter in the other place, talked extensively about the cost savings. He has obviously done a lot of work (no doubt taking experience from other jurisdictions) on the percentage of applications that will, indeed, be worked through under this process, rather than the previous process. I conclude my comments, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (11:27): On 19 June 2007, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning (Hon. Paul Holloway) announced a review of the South Australian planning and development system. In essence, its terms of reference were to provide this state with the nation's most efficient and effective planning system. I was tasked with the responsibility of chairing the review and delivering this outcome.

Subsequent to the government's overwhelming endorsement in June last year of the recommendations made by the review, the review committee was reconstituted as the Implementation Committee, with an additional three members nominated by the Local Government Association. The Implementation Committee meets on a monthly basis and assists the Minister for Urban Development and Planning in implementing the recommendations of the review. Our overriding focus since June last year has been the process of consultation over the residential code such that it would be ready for implementation on 1 March—the timetable recommended by the review.

This legislation is the enabler for the implementation of the code and the ancillary matters the review deemed essential for the streamlining of the state's planning and development system. Before touching on the matters contained in this legislation, I will briefly outline the economic benefits that will flow to South Australia if this legislation is passed in its pristine form by this chamber.

We estimate the reduction in red-tape costs to be the vicinity of $75.6 million a year—more than half the reduction sought by government across all economic activity in this state. The savings will be realised in the form of savings to private individuals of $16.6 million a year, through the streamlining of the planning approval process; savings of $49.6 million to industry, again through streamlining; plus $4 million in savings a year, through improved land rezoning times; and $5.4 million in savings to local government, through a reduction in costs associated with administering the state's planning system.

In terms of housing affordability, particularly for first homebuyers, the review is of the view that the reforms set out in this legislation, when combined with recommendations 19 to 23, which set out a new approach to managing land supply, collectively will allow industry to provide the most affordable land and house packages on mainland Australia.

Melbourne currently enjoys a $31,000 absolute price advantage over Adelaide on house and land packages, and it was the review committee's view that the Victorians' impressive economic development record was in part propelled by that state's ability to attract and hold young skilled workers through provision of well-priced new housing.

For those in the chamber who may be mystified as to where and why these efficiencies can be obtained, it is worth casting a quick eye over the planning system as it currently stands prior to the passage and implementation of this legislation. As a starting point, very little uniformity exists across each of the 68 local government authorities in this state which has led to a bewildering 17,000 pages of regulation that our citizens and building industry must navigate to obtain planning approvals.

The South Australian planning and development system is also bogged down in minor, low-risk matters. In the financial year to June 2006, for every 1,000 people, South Australia handled 42 planning applications. Victoria's planning system handled 29.26 applications; Western Australia, 24.09; and New South Wales, 17.27. In rounding out these figures—42 applications for South Australia, 29 for Victoria, 24 for Western Australia and 17 for New South Wales—put simply, our system is clogged up with matters that would not even be considered for assessment elsewhere in Australia.

The value of matters for assessment in South Australia is also less than in other states. South Australia had an average value of only $50,937, whereas the average was $106,226 in Victoria and $151,246 in Western Australia. Evidence received by the Planning Review from the Planning Institute of South Australia also indicated that vacancies for qualified planners in local government are clearly running at around 20 per cent. In other words, on average, on any given day in South Australia, one in five planning positions in local government is vacant and cannot be readily filled because of the shortage of qualified planners.

As a consequence of South Australia's having too many low-value, low-complexity matters for determination in the planning system, combined with a shortage of qualified planners, the processing times are extremely slow. Systems indicators currently do not provide information on average or median assessment time for merit assessment. Recommendation 38 addresses this issue. Therefore, the review's conclusion in relation to the speed of assessment process was based on data obtained from a representative sample of local councils.

This data indicates that, across all categories of development in all regions, councils on average have not met their regulated deadlines in issuing consents for merit development. In the metropolitan area, less than half of all applications are assessed on time. The case for reform is overwhelming and, on this point, the opposition appears to be fully concurrent with the government. Similarly, the opposition generally concurs with the direction of reform set out in this legislation, particularly as it relates to the code.

The opposition spokesperson in the Legislative Council, the Hon. David Ridgway, has raised the concerns of the Planning Institute in relation to issues of sustainability not being contained within the code. It was the view of the review that the code was not the place to address these matters for the simple reason that, at the individual building level, these issues largely relate to the selection of building materials and choice of construction design and, as such, were being addressed through possible changes to the Australian Building Code.

There is a COAG process which is currently underway which is looking to review the Australian Building Code to place environmental sustainability considerations at the centre of the building code in much the same way as New South Wales has done with its BASIX system. At the neighbourhood and suburban level, it was the expectation of the review committee that the environmental sustainability issues would be addressed in the plan for greater Adelaide which is currently being prepared by a consortia made up of Connor Holmes, KPMG and other consultancies.

The review lay the basic framework for sustainability with a recommendation that the organising principle for distributing population, housing and employment growth for new and existing areas should be focused on Adelaide's network of transport corridors. This is the transit-oriented development organising principle for the future growth of Adelaide.

Review recommendations for master planning of major new developments should be reflected in the plan for greater Adelaide in terms of the urban design of new suburbs and neighbourhoods being based on the capture and reuse of stormwater and orientation of streets and allotments so as to maximise solar access. Density issues will also be addressed in the plan for greater Adelaide and will result in constraining urban growth on the fringes of Adelaide to 30 per cent, with 70 per cent of all new growth occurring predominantly in transit corridors in the form of transit-oriented development. Many of the guiding principles in the plan for greater Adelaide will also be incorporated in plans for regional South Australia.

On the issue of infill, which has been specifically earmarked for transit-oriented development by the review, there was some initial concern that the residential code, if applied across our inner suburbs, could result in increased densities and loss of suburban character. This misconception was based on a poor understanding of the density recommendations for the plan for greater Adelaide which were designed to bulk up population densities adjacent to transport corridors thereby providing a patronage underpinning to a $2 billion investment in electrification of our rail system and to protect our inner character suburbs from inappropriate medium density development.

To further strengthen our protection of inner-ring suburbs, the review recommended that minor additional codification be permitted in agreed character areas in recognition of the need to preserve unique neighbourhood character and that these additional requirements must be quantifiable and confined to streetscape, setback, building materials and landscape requirements.

The residential code will come into operation on 1 March, and until 31 March will apply only to alterations and additions. Local governments have until 31 March to submit to the minister those neighbourhoods or suburbs to be considered for neighbourhood character status. The code will then apply to new houses in areas zoned residential but not under consideration for neighbourhood character code.

This outcome of the Planning Review is significant in so far as no formal structured protection of character currently exists in a uniform manner across the state. Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council has developed a notion of contributory items to protect properties and streetscapes that contribute to the character of a neighbourhood. But I have been advised that designation has caused some confusion for home owners who equate it with the restrictions pertaining to heritage listings.

Similarly, Unley council has devoted considerable resources over a two-year period to mapping the character of its suburbs and has been supported in this endeavour by the state government. This work will provide invaluable assistance to other councils in mapping and ascribing suburbs and precincts they believe may merit character codification, while Unley will benefit from a code framework that allows protection for character while allowing orderly, sympathetic development to occur with the surety and timeliness of a code-based assessment system.

Several members of the Legislative Council, most notably the Hon. Mark Parnell, have erroneously claimed that limited consultation occurred with the preparation of the residential code and this is a harbinger for the future. The opposition in the Legislative Council also moved an amendment seeking to ensure that future changes to the code undergo a process of consultation that involves notification to the LGA and consideration of any submission by the LGA within a period of three to six weeks.

First, on the issue of initial consultation, I advise the house that it was my proposal to the Review Committee that we commission the preparation of a code framework for community and industry discussion. I did not want the review final report to contain nothing more than a series of recommendations for further work.

Instead of a recommendation that a code be introduced, I proposed that we commission the writing of a code outline so that local government, the development sector and the community could actually understand what we meant by a code. Those members who have tried to access the Victorian residential code (Rescode) will find that it does not exist as a discrete document but is scattered in discrete packages through myriad documents.

The planning consultancy GHD was commissioned to prepare a draft code in collaboration with Planning SA and KPMG. I attended several meetings to keep abreast of the code's development. It was always intended that the draft code would be further and probably significantly refined after extensive consultation with local government, the development sector and the planning industry. Half a million dollars was allocated by the government to the Local Government Association to allow it to run this process of consultation and refinement. Heynen Planning Consultants assisted the LGA in this process and ran a road testing of the code, as recommended by the planning review.

The major intent of road testing was to quantify the reach of the code and matters moved to building only consent, such that the target of 50 to 70 per cent of all matters being deemed complying would ultimately be reached. The road test found that the code would potentially affect 37 per cent of all development applications, and a further 54 per cent of all applications could now be assessed only against the building code. Potentially, 55,000 development applications annually could be streamlined by the bill before the house. The road testing also suggested issues that needed to be addressed within the draft code.

The process of consultation has run over many months and resulted in 10 different iterations of the residential code. The minister has taken the unprecedented step of sending, in late December, a copy of the residential code to all members of the House of Assembly in the form of the Development (Residential Code) Variation Regulations 2009. The fact that the regulations are available in advance of the legislation attests to the degree of consultation and collaboration that has gone—

Mr Venning: Because we asked for it.

Mr O'BRIEN: And I am giving you full credit for that—into the preparation of the code and the determination of the government to get it right. It also attests to the good intent of the government in not asking the opposition to buy a pig in a poke on a matter of such importance to South Australians.

Returning to the issue of future changes to the code and the LGA's desire for consultation, as set out in the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment to the Legislative Council, let me not shirk from the fact that the review saw the code as a living document. It recommended an annual review of the code to ensure that it and building consent-only matters continued to capture 50 to 70 per cent of all planning matters. This was to prevent the slow stultification of the planning reform as matters slowly returned, unnoticed, to full merit assessment and, in the process, unwound the efficiency gains made by this bill.

The review recommended the formation of a code advisory committee to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the code; to take submissions from relevant bodies about the code provisions; and to provide the minister with an annual update of code provisions for possible inclusion. The minister has decided that the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DEPAC) perform the function and, on my reading of the Development Act 1993, it is clear that the act directs DEPAC to conduct the very process of consultation sought by the LGA.

Not having the time available to explain every clause in the bill, I will briefly explain the rationale behind clause 8, which relates to 'stop the clock'. The current ability of local government to stop the processing of an application while additional information is sought from the applicant, the review believed, sat at the heart of the inefficiencies within the system. The state is saddled with 68 different approaches for the processing of development applications, reflecting, in large part, the professionalism of the councils concerned. For applicants, this can be highly frustrating, with applications delayed for months, if not years, while additional information is prepared and submitted to council.

The LGA was of the same view as the review, and I am pleased to note that the opposition is similarly minded, in seeking a common approach to the processing of applications. The $500,000 that I mentioned earlier—which is being matched with a similar amount from the LGA—will also be used to prepare a developer's handbook and a uniform processing methodology for all of the state's 68 councils. Councils should no longer have to deal with inadequately prepared development applications—in fact, they should refuse to accept them—and developers should not have to face the frustration of having their applications disappear into limbo while council repeatedly calls for additional information.

I will briefly comment on a concern expressed by the Hon. Rob Lucas in the Legislative Council regarding the code regulations, which the opposition insisted it must have before it could deliberate on this bill in its party room. That concern related to the code stipulation in respect of building on side boundaries. The minister dealt with the honourable member's concerns in a thorough and methodical manner.

I wish to add this particular observation. Increasingly, in Melbourne in particular, architects are designing houses to maximise solar access. On blocks running east-west, architects are choosing to push houses to the southern boundary to maximise the amount of sun falling on the northern side of the house. That is where they are placing courtyards, large picture windows and living areas. For new subdivisions, this strategy clearly makes a lot of sense. Rather than centring all houses on their block in a new suburb, those with an east-west alignment could be located on the southern boundary. This proposition may fly in the face of commonly accepted planning wisdom as it currently stands, but it is a logical proposition if we are to embrace environmental sustainability. As the code will have its largest impact in greenfield development, I hope the Hon. Rob Lucas and the opposition see the good sense in the provision of the code. I support the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:47): The house might recall that, prior to entering parliament, I had the pleasure of being in the building industry for 10 to 15 years as a licensed builder and running a building company. So, I come to the house with that experience behind me. I have a degree in building technology, so I have always had an interest in the building and construction sector.

I support the principle of a residential code for the reasons outlined by the member for MacKillop and the members of the government who have spoken. I want to use my time to raise some concerns in the regulations about the code. We will not necessarily get to debate all the regulations, so I will simply raise the matter about which I have concerns. When the review is held in a year's time, perhaps the government can look at fixing what I think are some of the issues.

Coming from the building industry, I can understand why the industry supports this code, because one of the great frustrations of the building industry—particularly the housing industry and the development industry of the residential market—is the enormous amount of time it can take to get through local councils. I remember a case involving a council which I represent which had a hills face zone. One lady went back to the council seven times to get approval for her paint colours. She ended up walking into the council, throwing the Dulux cards on the table and saying, 'Well, you pick the colour.' She duly painted it that colour and, about four years later, repainted it the colour that she wanted, and that solved that.

Some councils are pretty slow in processing what are normal housing and addition applications. The concerns I have are all technical, and I do not expect the minister to be able to answer them today. I am simply putting these concerns on notice so that those within government can go away and look at exactly what they are doing, and whether they really mean to be doing it. Most of these concerns come out of my electorate. The Coromandel Valley Residents' Association put in an excellent submission, and I think the Blackwood and Belair Residents' Association also had some concerns about the introduction of the code and the detail within the code.

The reason those two resident groups have concerns is that it is a far more complex issue to build in the Hills area than it is on the plains. Builders know that it is more expensive because you have to level the ground or build up and have a different footing structure. A whole range of things are different when building in the Adelaide Hills or the Mitcham Hills than when building on the flats.

The first issue the government needs to be aware of is that it creates problems. This is a problem in my backyard at home: we are about two metres lower than the house next door, which is built more than 900 millimetres off the boundary. According to the residential code, my neighbour can now put up a solid wall eight metres long and three metres high. His house is already two metres higher than mine so, when I go out into the backyard to have a barbecue, I will be looking at a wall that is eight metres long and five metres higher than my backyard. As his neighbour, I think I should have some say about that.

I think there are some issues in the Hills areas about allowing people to build eight-metre long walls three metres high when there is a difference in the level of the blocks. My block, with a difference of two metres, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the biggest difference you are going to get between adjoining allotments. However, if this goes through, as from 1 March, I could wake up one Monday morning and find that my neighbour is building an eight-metre wall which is three metres high on his property but the effect on my property is that it is actually five metres high.

For those who are wondering, five metres high would be to the top of the tapestries in the House of Assembly, and eight metres would be from the Speaker's chair to about where the member for Unley is sitting. I do not think a solid wall right down a backyard is an attractive option that should be allowed without some scrutiny. It is now currently allowed under this provision. Coromandel Valley, Eden Hills and other suburbs in the Mitcham Hills area are very hilly and up and down, and many homes are going to suffer a similar scenario to that I have just described.

On page 5, new clause 3(g)(iii) talks about outbuildings. In the case of a carport, you do not have to get approval for a whole range of reasons. However, all of a sudden, you do need to get approval for a carport if it is going to go onto an alley, a lane, or a right of way. I do not understand the difference. If a carport does not need approval if it is going onto a primary road, for example, why does it suddenly need approval if the access is going to be from an alley, a lane or a right of way? Surely, if the vehicle is going to use an authorised access point under the Local Government Act, then it should be treated the same as a front access. I do not see the difference. However, for some reason, there is a difference within the bill.

New clauses 5 and 6 deal with spa pools, and new clause 8 deals with water tanks above ground. The reason I bring these three elements together (and this is interesting) is that, in relation to building a spa pool or a swimming pool, it does not state that they should be five metres from the boundary; it states five metres from the dwelling. It may well be that the adjoining dwelling is two metres from the boundary; so, the pump can be within three metres of the boundary. The problem with that is that in Belair or Eden Hills, if a spa pump is going on the side of the hill, it echoes straight into the neighbour's property. This provision will allow spa pumps and pool pumps to be put anywhere within five metres of a house. It does not matter where your windows and bedrooms are. There was an incident in Blackwood last year, when a young couple who moved in had an outside spa and, because they loved partying late at night, at 1am and 2am, the spa pump was going and the noise carried to the family next door, straight through the bedroom windows so they could not get to sleep. That is now unregulated under this bill. You can put them where you want, as long as you are five metres from the house.

The other issue is shade sails. For some reason, new clause 7(c) talks about shade sails being no more than three metres above the ground or floor level, depending on where it is situated. In other areas the regulations talk about the roof being no more than five metres. So, if you are using the shade sail as a roof—for example, as a pergola—is it three metres or five metres? Why is it you can put up an iron roof at five metres without approval but you cannot put up a shade sail at five metres without approval? That is what the provision allows. If you are putting up a shade sail roof over your pergola, it is unclear to me whether the three metre provision or the five metre provision applies. I am not sure why there is a difference.

Then we come to water tanks in new clause 8(d). No part of the tank is to be higher than 4 metres above the natural surface of the ground. That is interesting, because what happens if you are using rainwater tanks as your fence? Stratco and such places now sell rainwater tanks to be used as fences. According to this regulation, you can have fences that are eight metres long and three metres high without approval. If you are using a tank as your fence—which is quite legal, and promoted by government departments, Stratco, Fielders and others—what provision applies? Is it the eight metre by three metre provision, or the four metre provision? There is confusion there.

Solar photovoltaic cells are dealt with in new clause 10. The panels are to be fitted flush with the roof. In the building industry 'flush with the roof' means that the surface is flat so, in other words, the solar cells would have to be inside the roof so the top of the cell is flat with the roof. My understanding of the way they are installed is that they sit on top of the roof; they do not sit flush on the roof. They are not installed flush, as such, but they are installed flat on top of the roof. So, I do not think this will cover solar photovoltaic cells as it is written. I think what is meant is that the solar panels are not elevated; in other words, sitting up. I think that is what it is trying to achieve. I do not think the wording is necessarily right.

Then we get to the internal building work, which is under new clause 11. This is where I think there are some gains for developers. Anyone in the development market or with rental property should look at this clause properly. It says this: as long as you do not alter the outside of a home, you can do what you want to the inside. So, people in Bedford Park who provide rental accommodation for Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre can have what is currently a three bedroom home and not change the external walls but demolish the inside walls and convert it to a six, seven and eight bedroom home by using bunks and all sorts of things. What is the implication of that? The implication is that there is no car parking. This bill allows the internal dimensions of a house to be totally changed so you can accommodate as many people as you want inside the house without any consideration of the car parking issue.

I have some concerns with that because Bedford Park residents have had a gutful of developments at the Flinders Medical Centre with no consideration to their parking requirements. Twice I have asked the government to set up a task force to deal with it, and twice the government has refused to do it. But those people who own a private rental property will be able to demolish the inside of a house, put in as many bedrooms as they want and not have to worry about an increase in the car parking capacity. So, I can understand why the building and development industry would want that particular provision.

There is then the issue of not needing approval for the internal building work as long as there is no alteration to the external appearance of the building to any significant degree. What does 'to any significant degree' mean? I can see that we will get 68 definitions (one for each council) across the state as to the meaning of 'alteration to the external appearance to any significant degree'.

There is a reference to work undertaken in a historic conservation zone. Approval will not be needed if there is no alteration to the external appearance of the building. So, a person cannot change a window without development approval. Theoretically, I do not think they can paint it without getting approval, because they are changing the external appearance of the building. I am not sure whether that is what the government intends but, on a strict reading of it, that is what this is doing. If you went from a heritage green to an L.J. Hooker yellow with your paint colours, you have changed the external appearance. You cannot do that without approval. I am not sure whether the government really wants to regulate it to that extent, but it has done so.

A number of clauses talk about wall heights. They talk about a room of 60 square metres (a garage, for instance), as long as it does not have a wall height three metres above the natural surface. With respect to someone in the Adelaide Hills with a sloping block, is the level of the natural surface that is being talked about the high side of the block or the low side of the block when the structure is being built? What is the level that is being talked about?

There could be a one metre fall from one side of the block to the other. So, clearly, the level of the ground is higher at one corner of the building than the other. The builder either digs it in or builds it up, depending on what the client wants. If they build it up, where is the three metres measured from? Is it measured from the natural surface on the build-up side or the natural surface on the non-build-up side? As a builder, there is some confusion in my mind, and I would be asking what that actually means.

This issue is dealt with in some clauses. I refer to proposed regulation 7, Variation of Schedule 4, Complying Development, section (4)(2)(i), with the wording 'any excavation or filling associated with the development does not exceed a vertical height of one metre'. So, you can have filling up to one metre high. What I am asking is whether it is one metre plus three when you have a sloping site or three metres on the other side. To me, there is some confusion about that aspect.

On page 13 it talks about alterations and additions and, for some reason, includes the wording 'if any side wall of the dwelling faces south'. I am wondering what the importance of that is. Why south? South is generally the shaded side of the house, but I can see no explanation as to why, if the side wall faces south, there is a different development approval process than if the wall faces north, west or east. That is simply unclear to me, and it is not explained in the second reading speech. There may be a very logical explanation for it, but I cannot see it in the bill.

I have outlined those concerns on behalf of my electorate. However, the opposition generally supports the principle of a residential code. I note that there will be a review in the future, and I hope that in that review the government will look at the issues I have raised on behalf of my electorate, because I think that some elements that are confusing will be exploited by the building industry, and I do not think that was necessarily the intention of the government. The intention of the government and the opposition in this case, I think, is to try to simplify the planning process. However, in doing so, I do not think we need to put the character, if you like, of some of our suburbs at risk, and I believe that in some clauses of this bill we have still left the door open in that regard.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:05): I will not go on at length and repeat what has been said by the shadow minister and the member for Davenport, who has a good hold on this subject because of his previous vocation in the building industry, in which I believe he still has an interest. I come from a background of over 10 years in local government, of which planning comprised a large part, and seven years as presiding officer of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, a key area of which involves planning. This is one of the reasons my hair fell out at a young age! Indeed, the planning issue has been a continual problem in local government and in this place, and it is open to all sorts of conjecture—even corruption—about who gets to know what.

Without naming any particular council, there have been some delicate issues. In one case the CEO was put before the court, but I will not go into that. The whole area of planning is a contentious issue. As the member for Davenport said, the building industry supports this code as it will cut down on delays, and anything that does that we will all support. I appreciate what the member for Napier said in relation to our not wanting it to pass the bill until we saw the regulations, and the government has provided them. That is what it is all about: cooperation and getting an outcome—it is working, and I am pleased it can happen and that we can support that.

Getting approval to build or alter a building has degenerated into a farcical, ridiculous situation. Notwithstanding some of the anomalies the member for Davenport just mentioned, I believe we can expedite the process. I support the general tenor of the bill, which specifies by regulation the various planning guidelines, for example, the specs for a carport, so that a council planner can receive the application, assess that it complies with the regulations and send it straight back to the applicant saying yes or no, without having to wait for the council's planning body to sit in judgment on it before seeking another opinion. I have known cases where it is two to three years before applicants are told. I know a person who applied to build a shed; the shed is up there, but there has been no response from council. For the sake of a basic farm shed, if it is a category 3 shed and meets the requirements of the act, and if it is to be built by a recognised builder, why should there be nine months delay in getting approval?

A service station in one of my towns has been waiting for 2½ years for approval. In this heat these people are working in appalling conditions in a little hut by the fuel bowsers. An application went in 2½ years ago, but still nothing has happened. I cannot believe this has happened. I am happy because this area of planning is always a very difficult area: as soon as you try to improve a building there is always somebody who will complain, whether because of the view, the noise or general living amenity. The old NIMBY principle is alive and well, so we need strict guidelines to be laid down. People need the ability to improve their houses but, particularly when they are building upwards and obstructing somebody's else's view, there will always be a contentious issue. I have been there and done that.

In dealing with council, the guidelines must be there. With as many bureaucrats and boffins in the local government area as there are in the minister's office, I am not being too critical here. When I was chair of ERD, I appreciated the cooperation with the minister and his staff in relation to planning. We tried as much as possible to do things on time, get it back to the minister, make the recommendations and get on with it.

Only yesterday the Victor Harbor DPA matter came before the ERD Committee. It is a very difficult issue, and the Victor Harbor council came back with a very strong position in relation to its planning for the future. Of course, the minister has overridden that. We are in a very interesting position with that. We are sitting where we are, as an ERD Committee, in relation to the council's planning issues with respect to key areas down there, particularly in relation to major developments. I understand that the minister has changed many of the planning decisions and this has caused some angst.

This committee, I must say, is operating very well at the moment, and the politics do not seem to come into it. We sat in judgment, and we were scratching our heads—more hair falling out—over what happened here. How can a council come up with its plan in relation to its areas (particularly its key areas with major development status) in terms of infrastructure, roads and bulky goods depots—all these sorts of things that put Victor Harbor under much stress?

The council comes up with that. Of course, it got the approval from all the relevant bodies that would be involved through the department of planning and, then, at the last minute, the minister—who I do have a lot of time for—comes out with a contra plan across council's desires. The council came into the ERD Committee and put its case. I must say that, even though I have been lobbied heavily on this subject, I could not come up with the answers, particularly when, after the Victor Harbor council representatives left, the Planning SA people could not answer the question as to why the minister had overridden the council's position. They could not answer that question.

I feel sorry for the two people who came in. They were junior officers. It ought to have been the minister's staff who came in. I think that Mr Vanco should have come in and answered these questions and we might have got somewhere but, as it has turned out, we questioned what happened—he is in the building; he looks at me and waves his hand. Well, I wave back! I felt very sorry for these two people who came in. I would never accuse this minister of anything untoward—never; not at all. I just have difficulty sorting this one out, particularly when you understand that big business is involved here. Some of the planning has involved thousands of dollars, and some of that money has been paid by developers.

My whole point about raising this matter is that the opportunity (I will not say 'corruption') to make things happen by various people with clout (that is usually dollars) must be stamped out, it must be regulated and it must be totally transparent so that we can all see what is happening here. It is a difficult area when you are planning something in a place such as Victor Harbor. It is a lovely area, just like the Barossa—the pristine Barossa. People want it to stay the way it is without destroying its soul and character, but development also wants to come and cash in and provide the people with all those wonderful facilities they are told they need to have.

So, here we go; we have got the conflict. This is where the planning thing comes in. It is a fascinating area. I would be pleased if Mr Vanco could come and tell the committee why this has happened in Victor Harbor. I have spoken to the local member and, indeed, I spoke to the mayor yesterday, and it is fascinating; very fascinating. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

We do support this bill. I am very pleased, as the member for Napier said, that the government has provided these regulations. It will not solve the issue; I am sure it will not but, as long as it goes a long way to expediting the processes by which people can improve their houses—they want to build carports and put in swimming pools; regulate it all, and, if it meets the regulations, they can get the approval inside 28 days—that would be a fantastic result for this legislation, and the opposition is pleased to support it.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:14): I rise, too, to support the Development (Planning and Development Review) Amendment Bill. I note that this bill implements a residential development code, and it is understood that, if they do not fit into that code, developments can still be assessed under the normal merit-based processes; therefore, the code will simplify the planning system and not enforce further restrictions.

Some of the amendments in which the opposition was interested included block size, heritage character and setbacks. These are believed to have been addressed in the regulations. I refer to block size. The regulations state that if a site does not comprise an entire allotment, the site must meet the minimum site area prescribed in a council's development plan. This gives local councils the ability to determine what its council area will look like in terms of infill. Where the allotment is divided—that is, where you might demolish a bungalow and erect two or three flats—councils will set the minimum size allotment.

Regarding heritage, parts of the regulations will also address additions and alterations, outbuildings, carports and verandahs, swimming pools, spa pools, shade sails, water tanks, solar voltaic cells, internal building work and demolition. These things will not apply if the development is on a site where a state heritage place or a local heritage place is situated. This will ensure that local government does its homework and manages its local heritage and character issues. As we said earlier, certainly there are plenty of these issues throughout the metropolitan area, for example, Unley and Colonel Light Gardens, which is a heritage suburb, and people have to comply with the various rulings.

As far as consultation is concerned, most stakeholders were generally happy with the regulations. Some people think they may need some minor changes, but it was mentioned previously that this legislation (if enacted) will be live and need plenty of discussion moving forward, as planning matters have over time. Two issues not involved in the current version of the regulations are sustainability energy efficiency and the appearance of buildings to the street. In the earlier version of the regulations, the opening to a garage could be up to 50 per cent of the frontage. This has been changed to seven metres. Some of these issues may need to be resolved through further consultation with the government.

The Local Government Association indicates that the current version of the regulations incorporates most of its important concerns. They include very important issues to local communities of minimum allotment size, as I indicated earlier, front and rear setbacks, the nature of cladding used on outbuildings, etc., and many other matters of planning detail where changes have also been made to version 10 of the code on the advice of councils and the Local Government Association, because obviously local government is at the forefront when managing development. Other issues may have to be worked through, with further negotiations with the government. Other people have said that the move forward is very positive.

In general terms, sometimes development can be a controversial issue. Certainly plans need to be in place—good plans—but sometimes we get bogged down in the nitty-gritty of getting something to happen. In this world, you will get people who do not want to change a thing, but if we did not change anything, we would all still be living in caves. We must have not only good development, good and proper planning and protection for heritage sites but we must also remember that we do need to move forward as well. Sometimes this can be controversial, but I think the new code will help cut through some of the issues.

I have concerns about some local councils. If you want to see plans for an allotment adjoining your property, you cannot have them faxed to you. I live in the country at Coomandook and I have a property in Adelaide where I reside when I am in Adelaide. I guess I am an absent landholder, and it would be far easier for me to have something faxed to me. That is a local council issue. Fax machines are now old technology. In this world of technology, an email—which is instantaneous—could be sent to me. Mind you, it takes a while to crank it up on the wireless broadband at Coomandook.

A few of those matters could be picked up at a local government level, especially in relation to people who are absent landholders; and it could be the other way around for people in the city who have property in the country. Several members in this place would have property in the country. In order to streamline planning issues and enable consultation it needs to happen. Proper consultation should be undertaken, especially when multistorey developments are being built, in order to enable neighbours to know where the decks, entertaining areas and windows will be situated. Most of this is covered through local councils and I do urge that it continue. If it is not happening in some areas, then it should be enforced.

A few developments are occurring in my electorate. I note that the racecourse development on the southern side of the freeway near Murray Bridge is up for discussion as we speak. If it goes ahead, it will increase Murray Bridge by 50 per cent as we move forward. I commend the Murray Bridge Racing Club on the initiative and for funding it mainly on its own, if not totally on its own. It will be a great boon for the area. The minister is well aware of an ongoing proposal to develop the railway land. That proposal is being held up with negotiations at a local level with some local stakeholders, but I hope it moves forward in an appropriate manner. I hope to see a conference centre and a five-star accommodation centre being built in Murray Bridge.

There is a long way to go with that proposal, and there will be discussions around what old railway houses remain and what do not remain. I refer to my earlier remarks: we need to consider what we need to retain—and be sensible about what needs to go—and manage it. I know there will be plenty of discussion, but there is an opportunity in the future as long as water is flowing down the great River Murray—because that is the location of this site. I urge all governments to do whatever they can to get more water down that river—but that is an aside. The development of this land will be a great boon, not just for Murray Bridge but also for tourism in the area. Everything needs a lift down there. I commend the bill and note that the opposition supports it.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:24): Given my previous involvement in local government and my interest in planning development matters, I take this opportunity to make a contribution. I recognise the member for Napier and the work he has put into this bill. I know it has been a big job for him. I enjoyed hearing his 20-minute commentary about some of the history of this matter, the effort that has been put into it, the issues that were considered, the solutions that were determined and the challenges for the state in the future in order to ensure that the regulations and bill that are enacted place the state in a good position.

In his second reading explanation, the minister talks about the economic benefit potential for the state, and that is very important. With the economic crisis, the global downturn in financial matters and the pressure that so many households, small and large business and governments of all levels are under when it comes to managing their finances and ensuring that they get the best possible return on their investments and expenditures, it is important that we have in place a development and planning approval process that gives people some surety and allows development proposals to be considered in the most appropriate and quickest possible time frame while still ensuring that all the necessary checks and balances are in place, thus ensuring that the job opportunities that come from those development chances occur as soon as possible.

It is interesting that, in one of his contributions, the member for Napier talked about a 20 per cent vacancy rate for qualified planners within local government. Having worked in that industry for 27 years, I can only support those comments. We have discussed development matters in this chamber in the past as part of a suite of reforms—and I like that word 'suite' that has been used; I am not sure about the application of it, but it is used quite a bit—and I do understand that there are several stages that the government intends to go through to enact legislation to improve things.

A key concern for me has always been that, if you have the development plan right, everything else flows from that, and I know that members from both sides have spoken about the fact that, with 68 different councils, there are differences of opinion and differences in how proposals will be considered within those development plans. I am actually a believer in the fact that there is some degree of individuality among areas, and it is impossible to assume that one development plan for the whole state can actually capture all of the needs of every community that exists within South Australia.

I note that the member for Napier is nodding his head in agreement with this and there is recognition for that but, in making my comments, I do respect that, while there is a need to recognise individuality, it is also of absolute importance to ensure that there is commonality in the agreement in as many clauses and areas as possible because it gives people surety.

Those of us who represent areas that are growing—and I hope that all members of parliament represent areas that are growing—would be inundated quite often with people contacting them about the fact that, in their eyes, the council within their area is stifling an opportunity for development to occur. Within the Goyder electorate, there are five local government areas, and I have tremendous respect for all of them. I have more detailed knowledge about some than others, but I see them try their absolute best to make the best decisions they think are possible and necessary for their communities.

The Copper Coast area is having enormous development pushed upon it from people who see the opportunities that exist for that area—people making lifestyle choices—but it is putting pressure on the council to ensure not only that it can provide the infrastructure and services needed for this influx of people but also that it gets the planning processes right. Similarly, in Yorke Peninsula, which probably includes about 800 kilometres of coastline in the Goyder electorate, there are people now from the baby-boomer generation making that lifestyle choice, in many cases wanting either to have a holiday home or to move permanently to coastal areas to enjoy the lifestyle that that provides.

That is putting pressure on the ability to develop properties that are appropriate and allow for the heritage character or the uniqueness of that community to be preserved and, importantly, properties that allow for the infrastructure that services those communities to still meet those demands. In my time in parliament I have talked a lot about water. Water will continue to be a pressure point, but it goes beyond that, too.

In my review of the development plans—and I have had to read some of these quite diligently in the past, because I have been involved in organisations that have had to interpret development plans—I was disappointed to see the words 'may' and 'should' because, to me, that opens up things for conjecture. It is open to individual interpretation. An officer of a council or an elected member of a council or development assessment panel may have an opinion while a property owner or developer may have a different opinion, and that is where the dispute occurs.

I have always preferred to see the words 'must' and 'shall'. However, I understand that, in preparing development plans that include that sort of prescription, it is important that community consultation is as diligent as it can possibly be because the worst thing is that, when people come in to lodge an application for a proposal, they find that there is a very strict provision in a development plan that directly affects land that they may have owned for many years, and they will say that they have no knowledge of it.

I know that the regulations ensure that some level of public consultation occurs. I have always been personally disappointed in the fact that there has not been greater acknowledgement of the need to engage every person who is potentially affected by development zoning change, and I would encourage further consideration being given to that issue in the future.

It reinforces my view that you need to get the development plan right, as I have continually said. If the development plan is correct, especially under the current situation with the delegated authority that exists from the Development Assessment Panel down to planning and development control officers, therefore ensuring that development applications are considered and approved at a far greater rate, then everybody knows what the game is.

If people who want to lodge an application do their homework properly, reviewing the plan, understanding what the implications for them are and ensuring that their application is factored around that—still meeting their needs for the development on the site, of course—then everybody wins out of it, and that is what we want to see happen.

The second reading contribution from the minister acting on behalf of the Hon. Mr Holloway today certainly informs us of the financial benefits that can exist for South Australia with the implementation of this bill and the attached regulations. I am fully supportive of that and believe it is important that we do this, thereby reducing the time taken to consider applications and providing an opportunity to shorten construction periods.

Those of us who have built homes—in my case I have built three, as I have moved around the state—would understand that once a decision is made for a development to occur within a household, or a business, all we want to do is utilise that development as quickly as possible. So, legislation that provides that ability and ensures that councils only have to consider the relevant applications is to be supported.

The member for Napier commented on the fact that in relation to other states South Australia considers far more applications. I think it was Victoria that he was comparing it against, in terms of not only the number of applications per thousand of people but also the value of those applications being considered, and that does reinforce the fact that structural change needs to occur.

I am very pleased that the Liberal opposition has indicated its support for this measure. It is an important step forward which I have no doubt will be embraced by the 68 councils and thousands of staff who work within local government. I am pleased that some trial councils have indicated that they are going to try to work with it, see what modifications might need to be made and then make some improvements.

I commend the member for Davenport for his contribution. He undoubtedly brings a practical application to many things that this house debates. I was interested to note the line-by-line opportunities within the regulations that he saw as being potential risks. I think that everyone who listened to the member for Davenport would support his practical comments. He cited examples of otherwise well-intended regulations that might actually create an area of concern. It is those sorts of things that need to be continually reviewed.

It is a good thing that the government has agreed that after 12 months the regulations will be reviewed to ensure not only that they are appropriate but that they are keeping up with the demands of our modern society. I think this bill demonstrates that the parliament actually does work well.

Having made some preliminary notes on what I might say this morning, I changed my initial comment somewhat. I was going to say that it is quite easy to become disheartened by this place and everything that goes on around it. However, when you have people who stand up and speak about important issues and who do not continually repeat what somebody else has said, they—and South Australia as a whole—actually win from that.

I think the debate that has occurred this morning, and the effort the government has made to ensure that it has consulted so many groups across South Australia to get the best possible act and regulations, are a good sign, and this is something that needs to occur far more often in the future.

In recognising the effort of the government on this matter, I acknowledge members of the opposition who have also indicated their support, including the contribution of the shadow minister in this house acting on behalf of the Hon. Mr Ridgway, and express the hope that this bill becomes law very soon.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:34): It is well known that Unley is an area that is very proud of its heritage. The heritage and character homes in Unley are sought after and there is contention whenever there is a loss of an historic home. Currently, at last count, we are losing a couple a week in Unley, which is a matter of major concern. Prior to being elected, as the Liberal Party candidate in the seat of Unley I was made very aware of the heritage and character issues and concerns within my electorate.

It was something I was very pleased to take up, because when we moved into the area some 16 years ago I did, in fact, buy a house that was destined for demolition, a deceased estate in Hyde Park. I was bidding against a developer and in the end was able to outbid them. Subsequently, and with our very young children, we spent the first 10 years of our lives there restoring and then extending what was once a very small cottage to make it a lovely family home. That sort of thing is happening right throughout the City of Unley area (and I will talk about the development plan shortly) as well as the Burnside area in the suburbs of Glenunga, Frewville and Glen Osmond.

The interesting thing that has developed in this debate about Unley is that character is an important and valued issue. Look at what people talk about when they visit different cities around Australia: those that visit Sydney, for example, will talk about the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge; those visiting Melbourne tend to talk about the trams and the footy stadiums; and if you ask someone who has visited Adelaide what it is that stands out about the city they will talk about our beautiful stone homes.

There is a lot of growth pressure on the urban areas of Adelaide; people like the idea of living closer to town and, of course, there is the requirement for retirement accommodation as well as empty-nesters moving out of bigger homes into smaller ones. There is enormous pressure for urban consolidation in the inner suburbs, and I have to congratulate the City of Unley for being aware of this early on and working with the residents of Unley to develop a plan that allows for the preservation of heritage and character, but that also allows for development and recognises the fact that there is a government policy to expand the population of Adelaide and that the bulk of that expansion is to occur in urban areas.

I do not think the City of Unley is unrealistic; nor are the heritage groups in Unley. The Friends of the City of Unley Society Incorporated have written to today's local Eastern Courier Messenger saying, in part:

The Friends of the City of Unley Inc is a group of residents passionate about preserving Unley's heritage and character. FOCUS commends the City of Unley mayor, CEO, staff and elected members on the Development Plan Amendment: Stage 1 (DPA1): (Residential Historic Conservation and Streetscape Character Areas Pilot). This plan is the result of five years of hard work and persistence. It expands and revises the Residential Historic (Conservation Zone) and introduces a new Residential Streetscape (Built Form Zone) which gives the council demolition control and ensures that new developments complement and reinforce the desired character of the area.

As you can see, they are very positive about preserving the character and heritage of Unley whilst also being realistic about needs for the future, and are working with council to ensure an outcome that works well for all those interested.

The interesting thing, of course is that, in the lead-up to the mayoral election in November 2006, the former Labor candidate for the seat of Unley—the then mayor of Unley who was up for re-election—signed a pact with the minister (Hon. Paul Holloway) to introduce heritage protection in Unley. This was obviously a way to try to boost the heritage credentials of the then mayor of Unley, and that pact included demolition control.

After two years of negotiations and meetings with the minister, only late last year was an agreement reached. It was a huge compromise on behalf of the council. The minister would not honour the promise he made regarding demolition control, and he put some quite strict conditions on demolition control. So, we have a watered down version of demolition control in Unley, but we do have some demolition control, and I congratulate the council on getting the best that the government was prepared to offer in that situation.

Local government development plans will only work if they are signed off by the minister. There are three stages of the plan and this is only stage 1, and it took the government over two years for the government to honour its promise. You can do the maths: with two dwellings per week being knocked down as a result of demolition applications, the council was not allowed, on any grounds, to disallow and a heavy toll had to be paid by the City of Unley because of the procrastination and politics of the minister regarding this issue.

With the old demolition applications, there was no grounds on which the council could stop demolition. At least now we have a situation where applications to demolish buildings will be assessed on merit, taking into account the quality of the replacement or the structural condition or level of compromise of the original character of the existing buildings.

The council needs to be assured that what is going to replace that demolished building will be in keeping with the surrounding area or the character zone. Character zones are very important. It is no good saving a house in isolation if the houses alongside are demolished and replaced with buildings of an ad hoc nature that completely change the look, the feel and the character of the area. It is important that we look at streets, suburbs and districts to ensure that we have these conservation and heritage zones—and the City of Unley has certainly done that.

The minister has praised the City of Unley for the work that it has done, and I am pleased to praise that work as well. It is important to remember that demolition applications are not foolproof. We can still determine what will happen in a situation where a demolition application is approved based on what is going to replace the building. The developer might go out of business or sell and a new developer might come in with a different idea.

I refer to the classic example of what is happening with the Fisher Street building at the moment where developers can use very heavy-handed tactics. Approval was given to a consortium of developers a couple of years ago for 111 retirement units to be erected on the site of the old Fisher Street building. It was sold by this government to a developer without condition—that is, without any condition about what could go there or in what time frame it needed to be developed. It was sold for the highest price in the open market—which is fair enough, I suppose, if you are after a return for the government—but that did not take into account what effect it might have on the neighbours.

A consortium of business people purchased this Fisher Street development. They got approval for demolition and for the construction of a retirement village of 111 units. They had difficulty raising the money, so for two years it sat there being vandalised. I think there was a period of about six months when copper was at a very high price and thieves were coming in with ladders, cordless drills and hammers at all hours of the night dropping gutters and other copper fittings down five flights of stairs, waking up the neighbours at all hours. Of course, vandals moved in and there is also evidence of drug transactions happening on this site.

The short version of the story is that 2½ years later the building was transferred to a wealthy Queensland developer who purchased the rights of the building but then wanted to increase the density of that development substantially, obviously for their own commercial reasons. Consequently, even though they planned to start demolition earlier this year, it has now been delayed as the democratic process of notification is going through the council.

Some residents object to the higher, denser development and, of course, this has meant that the developer now has further delays and the developer is using those delays and activities to disrupt people in the evenings as a way of putting pressure on those concerned about the development to withdraw their concerns so that the developer can move faster. It is an example of a well-resourced developer being very heavy-handed in pushing onto the community what they want without sabotaging the public consultation process that developments of this scale tend to have that have impacts on those in surrounding areas. That shows that this is not a foolproof situation and we may still see beautiful buildings in Unley demolished with the promise of something in its place that is never delivered. That is obviously a concern for those in the focus groups and other areas.

I think the main point is that it is important we have consistent development rules across the state, but we also need to recognise that some areas in the city and country require the standard rules to be tweaked. Unley is an example of where that tweaking works and where it enhances the community and still allows for development.

I must disagree with the member for Napier when he suggests that there will be less work for council planners to do because, if councils can now stop spending time assessing very simple applications as proposed by this bill, they could spend time developing their own development plans so that, when people invest in the area, they fully understand what outcome to expect in the surrounding houses and streets for the investment they have made. Hopefully, we will see an increase in the use of planning departments in councils to look at the big picture for their cities rather than at individual applications, which they have done in the past, so that they can put development plans forward and consult with their communities.

I encourage the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters and the City of Adelaide (particularly for its residents in North Adelaide) to do this immediately, and certainly Holdfast Bay and Port Adelaide. There are plenty of areas we need to recognise as important to our heritage and also as great tourist attractions in South Australia. We boast about having a great lifestyle in South Australia, and it is important that we retain that and identify with and enjoy our history and pass it onto other generations.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:51): I am speaking today in relation to the Labor government's planning and development reforms. The essence of it is that this is legislation that will allow the government to publish a new residential code, and that, in turn, will determine a great variety of detail in relation to the process for people building or changing things on their residential properties.

The devil is in the detail, as they say. We do not have a confirmed residential development code to debate here in parliament today; we just have the legislation, which is essentially an enabling device. The concerns I have are set out in a submission I put to the department of planning last year. I will read briefly from that. It states:

I oppose

3m walls—1.6 metres is high enough and allows sunlight and the view of the sky.

Sheds at the front of properties.

60% coverage and 70% site cover for row dwellings where there is no adjacent open space.

Shade sails being installed without planning approval to check impact on neighbours.

Any housing/accommodation being built without local government approval.

Unplanned medium density housing that is not adjacent to open space or public transport.

I support

Use of permeable pavers to reduce stormwater runoff.

Promotion of stormwater collection.

Local and community input to every development planned to maintain sensible decision making.

Use of solar power.

Use of rain water tanks.

Due to the permanent nature of building and impact on neighbours it is more important to get things right rather than get things done quickly.

That gives people an idea of my concerns in relation to what the government is proposing. There is also a matter that has been brought to my attention by the Local Government Association. It would like to see an amendment that requires the minister to consult with the Local Government Association before any future changes to the residential code are made. That seems to make a lot of sense to me, because the LGA represents a range of councils, and it is the councils who ultimately oversee individual development taking place in their various areas. There are planning experts available to the LGA to consider the impact of any future changes to the residential code, so I am surprised that that type of consultation clause has not been supported by the Labor government.

Secondly, I have received submissions from the LGA that express concern about the number of draft residential codes they have seen in the course of the consultation process. The point here is that the government has been constantly reviewing the proposed residential code, and even between now and the ultimate implementation of this reform there could well be further changes.

That makes it harder for effective consultation to take place, because people do not know what the final shape of the residential code will be. Some of the concerns I raised in my submission last year to the planning department have indeed been addressed. So, the good news is that the government has been listening to some of the submissions that have been put to it, yet the problem is that we do not really know what the government will come out with as a final proposal.

What I find with planning and development law is that it is very hard to imagine the actual impact upon individual people simply by looking at what the planning laws may or may not allow. For example, in the Marion council area, there was extensive revision of the council's development assessment plan some time ago; perhaps a couple of years ago. I had a look at it at the time, before it was implemented, and there was a lot that made sense, and I could not see too many things to which objection could be made. However, in practice, it allowed much higher density of development, and it meant that, next to traditional homes, people were seeing blocks divided to erect two, three or four townhouses, with an overshadowing and overlooking aspect, and with substantially less open space on the block itself. These things are really irksome to neighbours who live in traditional quarter acre blocks—people who enjoy sunbaking or lazing around in their backyard, and who do not want the imposition of a two-storey townhouse next to them. So, these sorts of changes can make a real difference in people's lifestyle and their quality of life.

The changes that are proposed under the residential code, as best we can tell, given that we do not really know the final form of the residential code, will have an impact in a similar vein. If it means that people can erect all sorts of relatively minor structures without having to go through an elaborate approval process and without even consulting their neighbours, we will have aggravation between neighbours, and we will have instances where people's quality of life will be affected. So, I do have concerns about the legislation or, more particularly, the residential code, which the government will publish. We will have to wait to see the actual impact on individuals, as people build in accordance with the new residential code.

Having expressed those concerns, there is no point in my moving amendments to the legislation. The real point of contention that some members of parliament have in relation to this issue is with the potential residential code and not with the legislation itself. With those remarks, I conclude.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:59): This is an important piece of legislation, and the regulations that come out of it will be very important for all South Australians. When you leave this place and drive down North Terrace and south along West Terrace, you will see a great big sign saying 'Historic Glenelg'. Well, that is true in the actual history of Glenelg, but some of the buildings down there really do not reflect the historic nature of Glenelg, and that is something that was of great concern to me even before I came into this place.

I actually lived in a state heritage-listed house on the beachfront at Glenelg. Next to that house, on the southern side, were a set of Art Deco flats, and next to that was another state heritage-listed property. Any property that was to be built between those two properties had to be in sympathy with the state heritage nature of those properties. However, every plan that has ever been put forward, because of the five-storey height limit zoning, has been such that there has been no sympathy for it, including six storeys of glass blocks that look like a car carrier. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT