HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:17): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the new residential code.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I have received representations from the Coromandel Valley Community Association concerning the proposed residential code. Presently development in Coromandel Valley is governed by part of the Onkaparinga Development Plan Residential Code. That plan contains a very detailed desired character statement for Coromandel Valley, including matters such as the built form, streetscapes, scenic prominence, etc.—all criteria developed over many years with community input.

A discussion draft of the new residential code which has been under development for some time was issued in June last year, I think. It stated that councils would have the opportunity to apply to the minister—that is, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning—for exemption of areas on character grounds. It was fair to assume that the criteria for exemption will recognise and respect those areas where character had already been closely identified.

However, in January this year, the minister adopted different criteria described by the association as 'the crude expedient of a key benchmark which would grant exemptions to areas where the built form was constructed before 1940'. Those criteria might be appropriate in some inner suburban areas but are entirely inappropriate to a place like Coromandel Valley where the character derives from entirely different considerations, and the proposed site coverages, setbacks and the like, which might be appropriate for an inner suburban area, are quite inappropriate for Coromandel Valley and also inconsistent with the requirements to address bushfire issues. The association has written to the minister and others concerning this matter. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does he share the concerns of the Coromandel Valley Community Association in relation to this matter?

2. What steps will he take to address those concerns and, in particular, will he ensure that the particular concerns of communities in a similar situation to the position of Coromandel Valley are appropriately addressed?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:20): Yes, I produced that code in draft form when it was debated in parliament late last year. The act enabling that code to come into place, of course, passed the lower house in early February. The code came into place at the end of February and started on 1 March. The initial coverage of that code was for additions and alterations to buildings. As part of the process we announced, I always made it clear that the full implementation of the residential code would apply on 1 September in terms of consideration of character areas, because it was always understood and accepted by the government that, while the intention of the residential code was to capture up to 70 per cent of the development applications that go through the system, there would be some areas where a code would not be applicable.

Incidentally, some of those areas that we had exempted (and this came out during the debate, I hope) were in high bushfire risk areas, or in other areas where referrals to authorities were needed, and that would also include coastal conservation zones, for example, where referral might be required to the Coast Protection Board. In relation to at least the high bushfire risk areas (and I remind the honourable member that they are being assessed at the moment), I indicated in a ministerial statement I made earlier this year following the Victorian experience that, obviously, we will need to reassess exactly what categorisation should apply to bushfire areas, but that is another issue.

Councils were requested to respond to the government by 31 March last in relation to those areas where they believed character should apply; so the code would need at the least to be modified to take into account the relevant character issues that are involved. Councils were requested to provide that information by 31 March. Also, of course, the converse of that is that they were asked to provide a list of those areas of their council with which they had no issues with the full residential code for new dwellings applying effectively straight away. Of course, as a result of the act and the regulations passing through parliament those areas can be gazetted fairly soon once the department has had the opportunity of collating that information from councils.

I know that a significant amount of information has come through to the government. Most councils have responded before the deadline of 31 March, putting in the list of their areas where they believe further consideration should be given in relation to character. I know that the Onkaparinga council suggested three or four areas. I believe that Coromandel Valley may have been one of them, but I will have to check that. I have had only a glance at this stage at that correspondence. The department as we speak—it is only seven days into April—has been collating all the information from the councils that have responded (and that is most of them) as to these particular issues.

The process will be that those areas where character statements have been requested—at least those areas where councils believe special character should be applying—will go to the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) for consideration, which will ultimately make a recommendation to me as to whether or not they conform to character. As I indicated earlier, it is the government's intention then that those character areas should all be in place by 1 September and a modified code would apply, including such things as set-backs, site coverage, and so on, or the built form, reflecting the character of those areas. That matter is now being considered by the department. I will check to see whether Coromandel Valley was indeed one of those three or four areas requested by the Onkaparinga council. I can confirm that fairly quickly with the honourable member, and I am happy to do so.

However, I point out that, although the recommendation of the planning review was that, in most cases, character would apply to built form before the 1940s, I have indicated in my meetings with local government that, if there were special cases of character areas after that date, we would consider them. Whereas generally it is intended that the character areas would apply to built form before the 1940s, it is not exclusive, and I know that at least one council (Campbelltown) has put in a small area along a creek line where it believes there are special character issues, and that will be considered by DPAC for the special features that apply to that creek corridor.

It may well be that, in relation to suburbs such as Coromandel Valley, special issues apply. However, first of all, we require local government to respond to the government in relation to those areas. That has now been done (I will check whether Coromandel Valley is one of those), and it will go to DPAC for consideration. I trust that answers the issues raised by the honourable member, and I will speak to him privately as soon as I can about whether Coromandel Valley was one of the areas requested by the Onkaparinga council to which character should apply.

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