HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Western Suburbs Development

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:34): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises the pressures that constant subdivisions and new development is placing on the western suburbs;

(b) recognises the impact this is having on residents including loss of amenity and congestion in local streets; and

(c) notes the need for better controls over these developments to better protect the interests of the local community.

There is no doubt that over the last 20 years we have seen a significant amount of development across metropolitan Adelaide. While previous iterations of government planning departments have put a lot of work into trying to manage the growth of metropolitan Adelaide as the population of South Australia and the City of Adelaide increases over time, it has been at first a shock and now a continual surprise at how much new development is not accommodated by new greenfield developments, although that is still happening in some areas, but by the amount of infill development.

In all the time I have been a member of parliament, representing the section of the western suburbs that I am fortunate enough to represent, easily the most constant complaint I get from constituents is how new development is impacting them in their homes, on their local streets and across their suburbs. It is probably more acute in my electorate than it is in most other electorates.

My electorate contains one of the first large-scale master plan developments we had here in metropolitan Adelaide, with the development of West Lakes from the late 1960s through to the early 1970s, not dissimilar to what happened in the north-eastern suburbs afterwards, by the same company, Delfin, with the Golden Grove development. Both the West Lakes and Golden Grove developments were developed not just by that singular company but with very tight planning requirements and strictures about the scale, type and location of the houses that were to be built on each block.

West Lakes, for example, had requirements on minimum setbacks from the kerb of at least two metres, double width driveways, usually double lock-up carports or garages built within the home, etc. This was a recognition that when blocks roughly in the order of 600 or 700 square metres, sometimes more, were provided, and a three or four-bedroom family home was going to be built, yes, it might be built and occupied by a small family to start with but, if that family had a number of children who continued to live in the house and they all started driving, as most young South Australians do once they hit adulthood, then that property, that home, needed to accommodate not only that family but their cars.

What has happened in the meantime of course, as the cost of housing has rapidly escalated over the last 30 years, is that the demand for properties located on large blocks, not just exclusively within the western suburbs but certainly within the western suburbs, has driven a desire for some people to buy these now older houses built in the 1970s, now 30 or 40-plus years of age, knock them over, subdivide and build two properties.

In isolation, that in itself is no problem. The problem is when it is happening in a completely uncontrolled way and we are seeing many multiples of these developments occurring on the same street or within the same cluster of streets. In that very genteel, very well-planned, very calm environment that was originally envisaged for a suburb like West Lakes—not just West Lakes; I am also talking about some of the streets of surrounding suburbs like Semaphore Park, West Lakes Shore, Grange and even in some of the older established suburbs in my electorate like Seaton and Royal Park, where the blocks were often even much larger, including up to and beyond 1,000 square metres—we are seeing development after development after development.

The problem is that there is no control over to what extent these developments are happening on one street. Councils, of course, take the same line: we just apply the planning law that is provided by the parliament and, if it fits within the planning law, we will rubberstamp it, and that completely ignores the impact it is having on local streets, on the driveability of these local streets.

Many of these properties now are being built on blocks sometimes much smaller than 400 square metres or 300 square metres, and large two-storey townhouses are built almost right up to the kerb with very little driveway, perhaps only one off-street undercover car park being built, and are now occupied by large families of four or five people, including children of driving age who have their own car.

When you replace a house that could previously accommodate a family like that, including all their vehicles off the street on the property, with a new house that cannot accommodate all those vehicles and they are all placed on the street, streets that were not designed for that level of traffic, that were not designed to accommodate that many parked cars and that amount of built development, simply become really unpleasant places to be.

I know that there are some in this house who have constituencies that contain a large number of older South Australians. I am looking at the member for Finniss, for example. There are a lot of people who have retired in places like Victor Harbor. There are still a large number of retirees in West Lakes, people who bought into that development in that period of the late 1960s and early 1970s and quite proudly and for good reason have never left because it is a great place to live. They are finding themselves absolutely choked at the moment with this ongoing development.

The current government has in some small part recognised this. The former planning minister, the current member for Schubert, was petitioned by the member for Hartley after The Advertiser published in 2018 a list of council areas where the most subdivision applications have been made. Number one was the City of Campbelltown in the member for Hartley's electorate, number two was the City of Charles Sturt, and in particular those areas in my electorate, the electorate of Lee. There were very large numbers of subdivision applications.

The member for Hartley wrote to the former planning minister and said, 'I want you to change the planning laws as they relate to the City of Campbelltown and I want you to reinstate a larger minimum block size to reduce the level of density that the residents of the City of Campbelltown have to put up with.' It was very welcome for the member for Hartley. I did the same thing: I wrote to the planning minister, I asked for the same thing and I got radio silence—absolute radio silence.

There is a special arrangement for members of the same political party, for the Liberals, but no arrangement on the other side of town in the western suburbs for a Labor MP. I ask: why? Why should there be a difference? Why should there be one special arrangement for the member for Hartley and no other special arrangement for other MPs who might want exactly the same thing?

I even followed this up again, both with the City of Charles Sturt and the government, asking about a large parcel of land that was being subdivided by a developer on Trimmer Parade in my electorate, Trimmer Parade being the boundary here between the suburbs of Grange and Seaton. Some people might be familiar with some of the large tracts of land down there, the old market gardens in the western suburbs.

One of these patches came up for subdivision, just over 2,000 square metres, and the developer was able to successfully get a subdivision and a development approved for 24 dwellings—so an average block size of barely 100 square metres. The development was so dense, to the extent that there was basically no footpath; it is to be all driveway. I had a neighbour come to me and say, 'Where on earth are the people who buy these dwellings going to put their bins out?' The response from the City of Charles Sturt—and I know this is of some amusement to the current Minister for Planning, the member for Bragg—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —as she seeks to interject while I am trying to raise a legitimate concern on behalf of my constituents in the western suburbs.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the minister!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Apparently it is not fine, because I am being interjected by the member for Bragg, the Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Just take responsibility.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If she does not think that the people of the western suburbs deserve the same treatment as the people who live in the eastern suburbs, I find that very regrettable. If I can finish what I was saying without interruption from somebody who should know better, a deputy premier, no less. The response I got from the council was that the minimum number of bins which will be available for these 24 dwellings will be 14. So not only can they not put their own bin out, because there is nowhere to put the bin, but they do not even get their own bin. They have to share a bin. Who on earth is going to buy one of these dwellings knowing that—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —not only is there no footpath, and they cannot put the bin out, but they have to share a bin as well? I have spent the last—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —6½ years with children and, unfortunately, I have another couple of years with children who require nappies. I pity the neighbour who would ever have to share a bin with the Mullighan family because I can tell you that even before bin night it is getting unpleasant, no matter how many double baggings there might be for those particular deposits. This just goes to show why there needs to be a rebalancing of some of our planning requirements.

I do not think it is unreasonable that if a member like the member for Hartley is going to do the right thing, if he is going to put up his hand on behalf of his constituents in the City of Campbelltown and say, 'Look, this is getting out of hand. We need to start reinstating some minimum block sizes. We need to start imposing some additional controls to maintain some of the amenity that my residents enjoy in the eastern suburbs,' I do not think it is unreasonable that people who ask for the same thing in the western suburbs should be afforded the same opportunity. That is entirely reasonable.

Now the member for Bragg likes to say, 'Oh, it's all John Rau's fault. It's all his fault.' It might be a surprise to the member for Bragg, but she is currently the planning minister and she is the planning minister—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —who has promulgated the reforms to the planning system—yes, which were commenced several years ago—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —but that she has developed, she has steered through and she has implemented. These are Liberal Party policies, where there is a favour for one member in the eastern suburbs and there is a cold shoulder for other members in the western suburbs. That might be fine for the member of parliament who represents Burnside but, to my constituents who live in suburbs like Royal Park and Seaton and West Lakes and Grange and West Lakes Shore, and even Tennyson, things are out of hand.

Walk along Seaview Road—where the Deputy Premier is proposing to build part of the coast park, mind you—and families cannot even have relatives over for Christmas because there is nowhere to park within hundreds of metres of their residences. It is all driveway on Seaview Road. These are properties that sometimes sell in excess of $2 million or $3 million and they cannot even have their relatives over for Christmas. This is the point it is getting to.

This is all funny or amusing to the Deputy Premier. If she should ever find herself somewhere west of West Terrace, I would be happy to show her around because it is not much fun for those residents who have done the right thing, saved up for years, paid a deposit, taken out a loan and finally bought a property off-the-plan in a place like West Lakes 40 or 50 years ago. They have enjoyed what they were promised by the developer at the time, Delfin, up until recent years where it is getting out of hand.

We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are not asking for anything unprecedented. All we are asking for is for this Liberal government to extend the same privilege and favour that it has provided to one of its own MPs in the eastern suburbs to those of us who live west of West Terrace. The people of the western suburbs do count. The people of the western suburbs do matter.

I know that I only need to look to the member for Colton to know that he would agree with me in that sentiment. I know that he is experiencing similar conditions in parts of his electorate, whether it is Fulham or Fulham Gardens or even parts of Henley Beach, which are also experiencing significant development. We are not saying no development. We are not saying that development is unwelcome, but we have to strike the right balance. At the moment, the level of development is out of balance and it is unfairly punishing residents living in these streets—who have done the right thing for decades—to the benefit of people who sometimes are not interested in building a house to live in. They are only interested in building a house so that they can subdivide and sell it off for profit. That is not what people should have to put up with.

I am proud to stand up for my constituents. I am proud to represent their interests in parliament. If that offends or amuses the Deputy Premier, I find that regrettable, but I do think this is an issue that this parliament needs to pay some attention to.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the Deputy Premier, I call to order the member for Chaffey and I call to order the Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:49): Our government does place a high priority on improving infill development outcomes for our suburbs via South Australia's new planning system. I agree that our planning system should be structured to strike a balance between providing renewal opportunities for housing stock and enhancing the amenity of our highly valued streetscapes and suburbs. The Rau era is over.

Having just undergone a generational change through the repeal of the Development Act 1993 and the full implementation of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, I seek to amend the motion of the member for Lee to acknowledge that, while infill developments have delivered mixed outcomes for local neighbourhoods and communities, our government is committed to ensuring that we do deliver better urban densification and maintain South Australia's credentials as one of the most livable places in the world. I move:

Delete the word 'constant' in paragraph (a).

Delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert in lieu thereof:

(b) acknowledges the work undertaken by the State Planning Commission to address adverse impacts experienced through infill development under the former development plans; and

(c) notes the government will review the Planning and Design Code at regular intervals to ensure the planning system is fit for purpose.

Between 2015 and 2020, the population of Adelaide West region and—that is, Charles Sturt, Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens—has steadily grown around 1 per cent per annum, which is actually similar to the growth rate of the broader Greater Adelaide region. Nonetheless, the region has had significant housing growth over the past five years, as have the others, driven by a mix of master planned, strategic infill developments and numerous scattered small-scale infill developments.

While the merits of various forms of infill development can be debated, providing affordable housing supply in the western suburbs of Adelaide is important to support new homebuyers entering the housing market. One of the most significant elements of the new planning system is the Planning and Design Code, which replaced all previous development plans when implemented across the state on 19 March 2021.

I note the member for Lee's concern about some developments he has identified. Well, I do not disagree: some of them have been terrible, but I cannot undo the mess of John Rau's era. In response to the significant amount of community feedback on improving the quality of infill development, the State Planning Commission released its residential infill policy suite in late 2020; if the member has not read them, I urge him to do so, as I did earlier this morning to the member for Enfield.

This policy seeks to provide a more consistent approach across all council areas regarding a range of development requirements to enhance the street appeal of new houses and improve neighbourhood character. The policy intends to deliver multiple benefits, including (a) requirements for more permeable surfaces, increased trees and green coverage, greater onsite water detention and reduced driveway crossovers to retain on-street carparking and street trees; (b) improvements to design outcomes by incorporating a minimum of three design features on front facades, including eaves, porches, balconies, different materials, stepping, etc., to improve visual interest; and (c) requirements for minimum garage dimensions and improvements to on-street parking access through minimum onsite car parking rates.

These policy changes in the code are intended to have significant impact at a local level. They seek to achieve enhanced street appeal for new homes through greater use of design elements and materials as well as improvements to front windows, entry doors and bin storage areas. You do not need to go back to West Lakes or to Golden Grove, which had a covenant system over titles. It was a very old-style way of doing things, but it was effective in many ways. Look at the new Planning and Design Code. Look at the new policies that we have developed in relation to design and design for urban infill specifically.

Furthermore, the policy proposes a tree planting requirement of at least one tree and a defined minimum area of soft landscaping per new infill dwelling, based on the size of the allotment. These policies contain provisions for the retention of the large established trees or for an alternative payment to be made into a tree planting fund where a tree cannot be suitably accommodated within the site.

In the short time that it has been in operation there has only been one payment into the fund and others have chosen to plant the tree instead, which is great news. Given these policies have only been in operation for approximately six months, it is more likely the houses currently being constructed—and indeed that are being complained about—have in fact been approved under the former local development plans.

To explain general development time frames, once a development is granted of course there has to be a period for construction. Therefore, we are not yet seeing the full benefits of the code, and many are still being built under the old system. And of course, people still complain. Our constituents still complain, but please check if it is under the old development law and be assured that we have the process and the structures in place under the new system. The federal government's hugely popular HomeBuilder scheme has also contributed to this, as these homes will be constructed under a version of the previous system. Accordingly, the benefits of the residential infill improvements in the code are unlikely to be seen on the ground until 2022-23.

The State Planning Commission—and I acknowledge Helen Dyer and her team in this regard—intends to monitor and report on the impact of the new code policies as they come into play. As minister, I will be paying careful attention to these issues and will propose amendments to the code as necessary to ensure that we are delivering the best planning and development outcomes for our growing population.

Just briefly, in response to what can only be a rant about the proposed coastal park on the western area around Tennyson, I take that as being a position of the member now opposing it. The local council mayor, Angela Evans, has been incredibly supportive in ensuring that that linear park is advanced.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So I will take all of his complaints into account in relation to the linear park, but I will take that as a no. His Tennyson people do not want it and he has clearly changed his mind.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:56): I rise to support the motion from the member for Lee and oppose the amendment moved by the member for Bragg in relation to this important issue. This is clearly an issue that is hitting the western suburbs, but it is not just the western suburbs that are being impacted by the issues raised in the motion by the member for Lee. I am sad to report to the house that similar issues are facing the southern suburbs as well.

Residents in the south regularly raise with me the issues of subdivisions, the issues of infill and the issues of 'medium density housing' in Onkaparinga council, around some suburbs in particular, such as Christies Beach, Port Noarlunga, Seaford and Moana, where these developments have been a real issue for a number of years.

Before I was elected, there was a change made to the Onkaparinga development plan that brought in a new classification of density of developments called medium density policy areas, and these allowed almost an anything goes proposal for these developments. People came to me in tears because of the fact that they had been living in their house in Christies Beach for the best part of 30 years and right next to them a house was going to be knocked down and replaced with not one, not two, not four but six different dwellings that would block out the sun from their back garden and that would impact their privacy, and they had little to no say over this development whatsoever because it was being regarded as a category 1 development. This was happening time and time again.

We have also seen the impact upon streets, because you have more houses and more cars parking on the street. You have very small blocks and developments where people do not have enough storage space, so they use the carport or the garage as storage and park several cars on the street, and that quickly multiplies to create quite a traffic hazard in quiet streets.

There are also issues in terms of infrastructure, such as wastewater. We have seen, in Port Noarlunga South in particular, residents having issues of flooding of their properties from the stormwater from those areas because of the additional stormwater pressure from the new houses replacing backyards that would soak up the rainfall, new roofs that would all flow back into the stormwater drains.

This is an issue across all these suburbs. This is something that the member for Reynell and I raised time and time again. We were able to get the council to make a number of changes to their development plan that addressed some of these issues, that did address some of the very small block sizes, that did remove some areas from medium density policy area, that did address some of the bad design issues that we were seeing with these properties, but the issue is not eliminated yet.

Even when the council was proposing their new plan, they were going to increase the density on some areas. About half of the Noarlunga Downs suburb was going to be raised in terms of its density, something that I led a campaign with the local residents to get overturned, because the council had not even communicated with people in that area about those changes that would be put in place.

There is more that we can do to improve this issue. I will keep raising the need for better planning policies to make sure that where there is development occurring in these established suburbs it is not going to be at odds with the amenity and the wellbeing of the people who live there, as we have seen time and time again.

I do think there is a disparity in our planning laws and policies across the city and the state. If you have somebody putting up the wrong height carport in Burnside, that becomes a category 3 issue that probably goes all the way to the Supreme Court, whereas if somebody is erecting some hideous development that blocks out people's sun, increases traffic, reduces people's amenity in the southern suburbs, the western suburbs or the northern suburbs, people do not have the resources available to take that fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Councils appear to have different attitudes to the same rules on lots of occasions.

I know one constituent who told me that they were looking to purchase a property and they wanted to subdivide that into two houses, and the Onkaparinga council told them, 'I think you should really subdivide that into four or five properties.' You have the council sometimes pushing a higher level of density that they want people to develop in these areas.

That would not happen in Burnside, that would not happen in Norwood, that would not happen in Unley, but unfortunately it does happen in Onkaparinga council. That is why I will stand up for those residents who are raising these issues, particularly when you add the fact there are further residential subdivisions happening as well. I think there are three or four underway in my electorate at the moment, with another one or two to come in the next few years as well that will add additional pressure in terms of local infrastructure.

We need to make sure that we have a planning system that pays attention to the wellbeing and the amenity of people right across Adelaide, right across South Australia, not just those people in the eastern suburbs who have the ability to hire the best planning lawyers and take those issues right up the chain, because that is not a system that is equitable, but that is unfortunately what happens time and time again.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:03): I rise to make some concluding remarks and in doing so I indicate that I absolutely most certainly will not be supporting the amendment the Deputy Premier has raised. She proposes to cross out two-thirds of my motion. In crossing out two-thirds of my motion, she wants to remove that this house:

(b) recognises the impact this is having on residents including loss of amenity and congestion in local streets;

She does not even want the parliament to understand what residents are experiencing in my electorate and in the western suburbs. She wants to replace that with:

(b) acknowledges the work undertaken by the State Planning Commission to address adverse impacts experienced through infill development under the former development plans;

So we are not allowed to contemplate the actual experience of my constituents, residents in the western suburbs. Instead, she wants to congratulate her own department on apparently being on it. Can you come up with a better example of being out of touch than that? She also wants to delete the last part of my motion, which states:

(c) notes the need for better controls over these developments to better protect the interests of the local community.

She wants that struck out and replaced with:

(c) notes the government will review the Planning and Design Code at regular intervals to ensure the planning system is fit for purpose.

What on earth does that mean? Nothing, not even a recognition that there is a problem—refuses to recognise the problem which we have in the western suburbs. The simple fact is, yes, planning laws have changed in recent years. It enabled councils to apply to the government to change their development plans, to change the planning requirements around how properties are developed in those areas.

Many councils, including those in the western suburbs and in the eastern suburbs in the City of Campbelltown, apply to reduce minimum block sizes. Those councils took advantage of those laws. The laws did not require block sizes to be reduced. They gave councils the opportunity to change the planning requirements, and nearly all councils signed up to reducing minimum block sizes, which has led to the problem we have at the moment.

This is a problem. If the Deputy Premier thinks that this house should not recognise that problem and instead show its fealty to whatever efforts she and her department are making to pretend that this problem is being addressed, I just do not support that. We have seen what the State Planning Commission have come up with. We have seen the design code that they have released.

One constituent saw the pictures that were released and promulgated by this minister, by this Deputy Premier, showing what streetscapes would look like under this design code, and they said to me, 'Where on earth do you hang your washing out if you live in one of these houses?' There is no front yard, there is no backyard and, if it is a two-storey house, there is basically no balcony. It is an upturned shoebox built nearly boundary to boundary.

It is not good for the residents, it is not good for their neighbours, it is not good for the local street and it is not good for the local community. These things need to change. Of course, you can have medium density or high density development in areas where it is appropriate, close to the city, on major transport routes, etc., but there has to be a balance. You have to give residents, who currently live in regular houses on regular blocks, some peace and breathing space around this very intrusive level of overdevelopment.

The councils, of course, will not step in. We heard an example from the member for Kaurna, where the City of Onkaparinga were not furrowing their brow over a subdivision plan dividing one block into two. They were instead trying to encourage somebody to turn it into four or five dwellings. Councils have a conflict of interest here. They know that for each new block another rates notice gets sent out every quarter; they know there is another revenue stream. As I have said, from that development on Trimmer Parade in Seaton, an extra council rates notice goes out but not everybody actually gets a bin. They are not even collecting council rates to pick up a bin. This is getting out of hand.

We are not saying 'no development', but we are saying that this house needs to recognise the experience of the people we represent in this place. They need their voices heard. I am not going to have their voices basically crossed out by the Deputy Premier, refusing to acknowledge there is a problem with what people are experiencing in the western suburbs and instead seeking to congratulate her department. Please!

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 22

Noes 20

Majority 2

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pisoni, D.G. Power, C.
Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. (teller) Odenwalder, L.K.
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Pederick, A.S. Brock, G.G.

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

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