HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2008. Page 847.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:37): As members would recall, I sought leave to conclude my remarks when we last debated this bill on Tuesday of this week. At that point, I indicated to the minister and to the government that we were somewhat frustrated and disappointed with the late arrival of the draft residential code.

The minister has made the comment a number of times that it is highly unusual and irregular for the parliament to receive a copy of the regulations prior to the passing of a bill. However, as members are fully aware, the residential code is the nuts and bolts of this particular change to our Development Act—and a significant change it will be. So, we felt that it was important not to progress the debate until we had something close to a final copy of the residential code.

We now have version 10 of the residential code, which I am sure the opposition has circulated. I note that members of the Local Government Association are now in the gallery, and I have in the last 10 minutes printed off a copy of the response that they have sent. The LGA has had 24 hours or thereabouts to have a look at the residential code.

The opposition has circulated copies to a range of stakeholders, and the LGA, as diligent as it always is, has been the first to respond formally. A couple of others have responded informally, and we hope to receive responses over the next couple of days. As the minister has indicated, we will be sitting next Tuesday, which is one of the optional sitting days. The opposition had requested that we either sit next Tuesday or postpone the debate on this bill until next year.

As I said earlier in the week, it is a relatively short bill, more of an enabling mechanism for the implementation of the residential code, which is the nuts and bolts of the changes. I have a few questions I will put to the minister, which he can either answer in his reply, or he may wish to respond later. The code is a regulation, and all regulations are disallowable instruments.

Will the minister advise the council (either when he sums up or in the early committee stages or first thing next week) whether that is the case and explain the process that will be open to the community? Should the government, the stakeholders, the opposition and minor parties through this process have missed some important problem that has to be dealt with or if the government is not prepared to move on a particular issue that then presents itself as a significant issue in the community, we should know what options are available to the parliament to address those particular concerns.

When we have this rapid promulgation of different versions, often things are overlooked; significant road testing of the first draft may have been done, and then we find that we have moved from draft 1 to draft 10. The minister's staff did advise me that they will need to workshop and test some more of the amendments or changes to the residential code, notwithstanding that the areas that were of concern to the opposition, as well as the issues we were very keen to see addressed such as character, heritage, setback and allotment size, appear from my reading over the past 24 hours to have largely been addressed in this version 10.

I am a little intrigued. This measure was not on the Notice Paper for the other place. The implementation time is 1 March 2009, which is a widely-publicised and desirable time but I guess that it would not be the end of the world if it were to happen on 10 or 15 March; in fact, there are components of the code that will not be implemented until September 2009.

Perhaps the minister will explain why the government sees it as being so absolutely important that the bill has to be passed through the Legislative Council either this week or next week when it will sit on the Notice Paper in the other place until next year and naturally be passed in that chamber reasonably quickly, we would expect, given the numbers there.

The minister might like to consider why it is so important to deliver it to the other place over the break, and why we could not perhaps have considered it in this place first thing next year. I assume that the government has circulated version 10 to all stakeholders; I hope so. Is version 10 the one that will go to implementation or are we likely to see further changes? What mechanisms are available to the parliament and the community if there are further changes in the road testing process between when we expect the bill to be passed—probably next Tuesday—and early February when it is debated in the other place?

Is there a mechanism to advise stakeholders via Planning SA's website, or is it not intended to advise anybody and then just put it into practice next March and see what happens? I think it would be useful and perhaps make it a little easier for stakeholders to understand any changes and why they have been made, if there are to be any over the next coming months.

The LGA, in its initial comments to me, mentioned matters to which I would hope the minister would respond, in particular, in relation to the road tests and specifically the amendment of section 35—special provisions—relating to assessment against a development plan. The LGA's letter states:

It is understood that this amendment provides 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 to be complying development.

The crux of this is the definition of what might be considered a minor variation, and the LGA is not particularly happy with that particular amendment in that form. That is not necessarily indicating that the opposition totally supports the LGA 's view.

In the next paragraph the LGA suggests that there needs to be a set of guidelines contained in the development regulations to assist the interpretation of what might be considered to be a minor variation. I can see some problems with that grey area of what is seen to be a minor variation, because we often see neighbourhood disputes and issues between neighbours where mountains are made out of molehills because of misunderstandings between neighbours. I suspect that this is an area where there could be potential conflict. I often think about developers—not the big builders who build hundreds of homes a year, but the mum and dad developers—where a minor variation may be seen by a neighbouring landowner as having a significant impact on them and cause for angst between neighbours. So, I would like some clarification from the minister on that particular issue.

The LGA also has requested that it be consulted in relation to any proposed changes to the code. As I said, the opposition has not yet fully considered anything that the LGA has suggested. I would be interested to listen to the minister's view about consultation on changes to the code. This raises the question that, if you consult the LGA as a significant stakeholder, should you be consulting the people who are building the properties—whether that is the mum and dad developers or the big developers? Should you be consulting the planning institute, that is, the practitioners who are going to be dealing with it? Also, I guess there could be a strong case put that parliament should be consulted—or, at least, advised—when changes are made to the development code. Again, that is something the opposition will be considering. I would like the minister to consider that issue in particular.

As members would be aware, because the code, as I said earlier, is the nuts and bolts of the amendment bill we have before us, the opposition has a rigorous committee process to go through legislation, but we have been waiting for the final version. The LGA has asked whether we have any firm views, either publicly or privately, but we have not considered its suggested amendments. The same applies to the Hon. Mark Parnell, who tabled amendments after the last time the opposition joint party room met, which is the forum at which these things are resolved.

So, at this time, I indicate that the opposition supports the second reading of the bill and looks forward to a response from the minister on the questions I have raised, and to sitting next Tuesday to finalise the debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:48): I rise to speak to the second reading of the bill on behalf of Family First to give in-principle support to the bill and the efforts the minister has put into it. It is the kind of bill that excites the passions of some, and there is an element of trust in the government that is required in relation to it.

I say at the beginning that, whilst Family First is keen and, by and large, supports economic development and healthy development in our community, we will watch with vigilance to see that the government does not start (particularly as we head towards an election) trying to deflect issues of major government responsibility. We want to ensure that the government does not spend a fair bit of its time and energy attacking any problems it may have in this area and then deflecting them onto local government. I have worked personally with a lot of councils over the years—and still do—from both a parliamentary aspect and also the aspect of a farmer who is seeking approval from time to time for planning and building infrastructure.

I have to say that, by and large, local government does a pretty good job when it comes to the issues of complying with development planning and the general planning requirements around residential codes, etc. It is easy to target and blame local government when developments are not proceeding within certain time lines, and I will touch on this a little later.

I do hold a lot of respect for the leader of government business in this house; I think that he is one of the more intelligent and diligent ministers of the government. That is my personal opinion; it always has been and will continue to be. However, having said that, prior to getting notice yesterday that we would be sitting next Tuesday, I was concerned about the shortage of time with respect to consulting on and considering this bill, particularly for an Independent, smaller party that does not have the resources—it gets pretty strenuous.

Having also been a minister, I can remember plenty of times when this government in opposition was hell-bent on ensuring that there was an absolute minimum of two sitting weeks before any bill was debated. Time and again it had a crack at me and my other ministerial colleagues about that. I refer again to the old comment I mentioned earlier this week, namely, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, but as the Hon. Bernie Finnigan tried to raise with me last night with respect to a bill that I was trying to put through (with a lot fewer resources than government), regulations and codes are very handy to members in this chamber when they are debating; and, 99 per cent of the time, no honourable member sees a regulation until months after legislation has passed. Having said that, we have now received the residential code. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is really the mechanics of this bill; and, to that end, I do thank the minister for making that available.

We have not had time as a result of the late sitting to go right through that residential code. In fact, only today we received an email from the LGA. Family First does take notice of the LGA as a professional organisation, so we will be studying that email in great detail over the next few days, together with the residential code, and we will have questions to put to the minister, and some possible amendments, come Tuesday. I wanted to place all that on the public record. I do thank the minister for having the wisdom to extend this debate until Tuesday to ensure that we put the best possible legislation through the parliament.

What stood out to me from the outset was the very first substantive clause of the bill, clause 4, which enables the government to exclude prescribed classes of development from the requirement to be assessed against a development plan. I think that the government has to admit that this is a broad power that could be used by any government—not just this government, but future governments—for a purpose other than what is clearly intended by this bill. It is always the unintended consequences of bills that legislators must consider before passing the legislation if we are to get the best possible statutes for our South Australian community.

This bill is about what has been described as a 'no brainer' development decision. But the power in that particular clause, as I understand the law and the drafting of this bill, would allow a government to use regulations to exclude much more significant development issues from the development plan compliance. I ask that, in committee next week (I am giving his staff plenty of notice), the minister provide a list and an assurance to the chamber of the types of issues that it is envisaged will rely on that clause.

I believe that, when those regulations inevitably come, this would also give the Legislative Review Committee considerable guidance when considering whether the intended scope has been exceeded. I want to make some general comments on the bill in my second reading contribution. We are also presented with the usual situation (which, for some reason, tends to be more contentious in this urban development field in front of us) of knowing the parameters that will be set for automatic approval of things such as setbacks, the building footprint, fence height, decking and the like. As I said, we will be looking closely at the code before next Tuesday.

Talking more generally, Family First supports a government that will make life easier for families. It has been ridiculous to have low thresholds for automatic approvals for things such as the size of sheds and rainwater tanks, fence heights and the like. It is well and good to reduce red tape for business, but, first and foremost, Family First's concern is to reduce red tape for families. I think it is fair to say that this bill—and the code that will follow it—is a good move that reduces red tape for families.

I am talking at one level about additions to homes, but, as has been alluded to in the debate, this package also potentially reduces the amount of interest a family will have to spend on their block of land because there will be less waiting time from submitting plans to getting approval. When you consider the cost of a block of land today, if there are delays in basic approval processes, it holds a family back financially to quite an extent, and several people have raised those issues and concerns with me.

I now turn to family block sizes and proportions. I have to put on record and acknowledge that the minister does listen to what we have to say—I am being very generous to the minister today: Christmas is here. He does listen and he is taking some of these things into consideration. Our concern is to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck for families in the space available around a home. As I am pushing in the water debate and the comprehensive water policies and bills that Family First have before the council for houses to have larger rainwater tanks, obviously space around a home is a consideration. However, with our childhood obesity epidemic, we also need some open space around homes as well.

I will go into some detail in a minute about the open space concept because I am not necessarily a fan of just seeing smaller and smaller allotments with bigger and bigger home footprints right across suburban and country town areas. I am actually hearing some terrible stories from around the state of proposed developments that will represent a rack them and stack them approach to housing, or a density approach, if you like. If the government is serious about the transit-oriented development (TOD), it will pursue density close to transit points, rather than necessarily allow it across the whole of Adelaide. I get the impression that that is the government's plan and I hope that is what the minister intends.

Residents and some others are absolutely opposed to blanket density or the rack them and pack them development and, in fact, our office has had considerable representation about this particular matter. I have much sympathy for them. I will talk for a moment about density development and some of the reasons I do not favour it right across metropolitan urban infill areas. The first reason is that times have changed. I recall that parks were created years ago because children were playing on roads and not in their backyards, and sometimes children were being hit by cars as cars became faster and people paid less attention to children playing on the roads. Once parks were provided, all was well, until, unfortunately, we saw the menace of paedophilia—and, sadly, we are still witnessing it today.

Parents do not necessarily feel safe sending their children to parks, particularly if those parks are a long way from the street in which they live. That is something that also needs to be considered with good planning into the future because, the more infill you get, the more pressure you have on trying to keep areas available for open space. Many parents want to see an opportunity for their children to still be able to play in the backyard.

In making these remarks, I am not saying that, sadly, we are heading down the path of countries like South Africa which, for other reasons, have housing estates (as I have witnessed) behind high-security fences. Still, without children playing in parks, they play under a parent's watchful eye at home, if they have a backyard. I believe that we need to look carefully at not only what we intend to do but, in reality, see carried out when it comes to the start of the debate on urban infill and allotment sizes.

Another reason that I am opposed to small blocks everywhere is that the form of density development means that young families are confronted with a choice between, on the one hand, a larger allotment with room for the children to play safely out the back, but sometimes—in fact, most of the time—situated 40 to 50 minutes from the city, with less infrastructure and transport services and, on the other hand, a house with a tiny allotment that more often will be 20 to 30 minutes from the city. And, I add, most of the time it will be closer to more public transport options because, at the moment, we are struggling to see government focus and investment on extending railway lines and also other transport initiatives. So, those younger families will often be tempted to choose the smaller allotment over the larger, if they can afford to get closer in (for the other side of the argument that I am putting forward).

Housing affordability might also dictate that they can afford only a smaller allotment rather than a larger one. So, policy has intermingled needs here between public transport and development and family interests, hence, the transit-oriented development concept that the government has come up with, I guess, but ultimately I believe that using a code to impose minimum open space and a maximum housing footprint is good social policy.

During the briefing, it was put to us that the private open space for allotments less than 300 square metres will be at least 24 square metres, with a minimum length of 2.5 metres down one side (so that a developer will not try to comply with a one metre by 24 metre so-called backyard); at least 40 square metres for 300 to 500 square metre allotments; and at least 80 square metres of private open space for allotments 500 square metres or larger. This couples with the proposed 60 per cent maximum footprint of a household, which does not include external fittings, such as a veranda or a pergola. It makes sense to approach it in that way, because 24 square metres out of 300 (which I referred to a moment ago) is actually only 8 per cent of the block. In the 300 to 500 square metre section, it is 8 to 13 percent, and for 500 square metre or more blocks, up to 16 per cent of the block is open space.

So, if the footprint has to be a maximum of 60 per cent, there is plenty of room for either a veranda or a pergola area within the difference between the 60 per cent maximum house footprint and the 8 to 16 per cent minimum private open space, and covered space which is good for outdoor recreation, UV protection, water catchment and reuse.

I understand that the government has taken submissions from councils that wanted a lesser maximum footprint and the building industry that wanted a larger footprint. I place on the record that I think, in this difficult balance, that the minister has probably got it right. I also support the sensible concept that a habitable room must open onto the prescribed minimum space, otherwise it is useless space—probably only good for a washing line and certainly not recreation. Governments need to encourage recreation by allowing family homes that will have space for private recreation. I appreciate that there is a free will concept in letting families decide what kind of house they buy and, hence, to decide for themselves how much open space their family will own, but I believe that it is always healthy social policy to ensure that there is a minimum of private space.

It should be remembered that the code that we are talking about here is only for streamlining. If people want to try to do something noncompliant with the relevant development plan or, indeed, if the relevant development plan is out of kilter with the code requirements, then they fall back to the plan. However, then the builder does not have the benefit of the streamlining, and I am concerned that there will be lengthy delays. I think that the code is, therefore, sensible policy to promote uniformity and appropriate balance between the building footprint and the outdoor covered and outdoor open areas.

I again turn to rainwater tanks, as I said I would earlier in my remarks. I will spend a little time dwelling on the issue of rainwater tanks (because I see that the minister is listening). What I am about to say regarding stormwater harvesting (with the bills that I have before this council) is why I am pushing for an increase in rainwater tank size. The 1,000 litre tank minimum requirement, to my way of thinking, is ridiculous, and many others to whom I have spoken think the same. We need to be talking about bigger tanks, and I will address that further in the debate with respect to the bills that Family First has before the council. However, I urge the government to do a few things concerning rainwater tanks.

It should put so-called `blue-friendly' issues (such as tanks) very high in consideration under the code, including providing mechanisms to ensure that the open space leaves sufficient room for a tank if the owner should want to put one in or, preferably, creates a requirement for a bigger tank to be installed. The government also needs to get serious about rebates for tanks, as our rebates sadly fall short of what other states are offering. I am talking not only about rebates for new homes but also retrofitting tanks to older homes. The building industry rightly complains that it is an unfair burden upon them and new home builders to have to put in tanks when existing home builders are not required to do so.

If the government was fair dinkum about water security it would invest heavily in schemes that use economic encouragement. What I am talking about here is using rebates rather than legislative requirement—for a start, one has to ask whether that legislative requirement is ever enforced—to dramatically increase the uptake of water storage in homes. For water security we need a diverse range of options, and I think the River Murray, stormwater harvesting, rainwater tanks, groundwater usage and desalination are all part of that equation. So, I urge the government to hold 'blue-friendly' (a term I like that was used in the briefing by government officers) development very high in its consideration of the code that we will work through next Tuesday.

Bureaucracy can tie you up in knots with regulations and the like, but families are telling me that they want to put in tanks and save water on site. I can appreciate the risk this poses to SA Water revenue and, therefore, the concerns of the Treasurer, but this government needs to put water security first and SA Water revenue second. Without water there will be no revenue, because we will not have sustainability in our state.

I return to time frames and streamlining processes. Amongst a few other concerns I have, in committee I will ask the minister to explain in a little more detail the time frame for councils to comply with approval under the streamlined code. If a council does not assess an application within a set time—I believe it is 10 days, but I will get clarification on that as we work through the code—I understand that the application is deemed refused, not accepted. I think that is the right decision—I will not retrace the reasoning here—but if an application is deemed refused, where can the builder or homeowner go?

Any talk of filing forms and taking council to court is of great concern to me. Families do not feel confident taking on a council that has the capacity to engage a competent legal representative, and individuals, particularly when they are building and have high outgoings, probably cannot afford a lawyer. So, I am concerned to see that the minister, perhaps through regulation, make it as easy as possible for a person to compel the council, via the court, to make a decision—and quickly. Otherwise I believe this whole system will fall apart. Perhaps the minister can, by regulation, create a simple one-page appeal and require the council to send the applicant a copy of that form with the acknowledgment of receipt—perhaps with an automatically generated date to tell the householder when they are entitled to lodge the form if the council has not responded.

In closing, I congratulate the government for its consultation on this bill. We are still getting representations from a cross-section of constituents, some saying that we should support the bill in its entirety and others saying that we should be careful in our assessment of the code and during questioning in the committee stage. There are others who oppose it and who ask us to oppose it, mainly because they are coming to the second part of what we have been talking about which will come down the track, that is, what will be the picture in the long term, or even the medium term, of urban infill? There is some confusion out there in the community at the moment.

By and large, I congratulate the government for its consultation on this bill. It is pleasing to hear that, in a consultative way, it has eliminated from streamlining types of development such as battle axe allotments and row housing about which, as I said, some groups and MPs are concerned. In this bill we are really talking not about subdivisions but about additions to existing homes or the standard 'bulldoze and rebuild one house for one house' replacement model. Anything other than that really ought not have the benefit of streamlining for the reasons raised with my office by a number of constituents this week and which I have already highlighted.

Again, we still have to look through the code—which, again, we thank the minister for providing—to determine whether there are other issues that need to be debated during the committee stage.

As I said at the beginning, we have received other representation just today from the LGA and will be looking closely at that to see whether there are further questions regarding the code and the bill and whether amendments need to be considered to satisfy some of the concerns the LGA has put to our party and other MPs and parties today or in recent days. I urge members of the Legislative Review Committee to be alert to the issues Family First has raised when the code comes before it, and I will ensure that I send a copy of my remarks to committee members as a reminder.

In conclusion, it is the right timing with this debate to get clarity on one planning issue generally, where councils are attacked for not complying or being told they are too slow when it comes to giving approval. Sometimes councils, under the law, have to go out to a lot of state government departments for responses before approving planning development applications. If one of the standing committees were to look at the response times and determine whether they comply with the law, they would be quite surprised to see how often departments lag in getting their answers back to local government.

Unfortunately, it is not the departments that are blamed for that publicly but rather the councils. I do not see any MPs in there defending councils from that viewpoint. I am perplexed by the fact that departments take so long to get responses back to local government, when we see (not including increased numbers of doctors, nurses, police and teachers) 6,000 additional public servants. One questions why delays occur in responding to local government and why the legal requirement for time lines cannot be observed. With those comments, I look forward to receiving answers from the minister in committee. I support the bill.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:12): I thank members for in most cases their thoughtful and detailed contributions to this bill, which is a significant change the government is proposing. As has been pointed out, the bill is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation of about 10 clauses, but the most important part of the bill is that it is enabling legislation and provides for the proposed residential code to be brought into effect. It is for that reason the government has taken the unusual step of providing what it hopes is as close as we can get to a near final version of the regulations, which will in effect constitute the code at this early stage. We will need to have this legislation pass both houses before any regulations can come into effect.

To answer the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether this is a final version of the regulations, clearly that will depend on the form the bill is in when it passes both houses and becomes law. If significant amendments are made, that may well change the need for regulations. Indeed, if the amendment put forward by the Hon. Mark Parnell are passed, we probably would not have a code at all—we would not bother. However, if amendments are made to the legislation, we would have to consider varying the requirements. If as a result of consultation over the next two or three months (the code is not due to come into effect until 1 March next year) we find drafting improvements or if issues are raised that have been overlooked, as is often the case with legislation, particularly when covering such a large area as this, then we would make those changes before the final version. With the circulated documents we have tried to make the regulations as close as possible to what we see as being the final version. Of course, we have the caveat that, if there are things we could improve, we would do so. However, I would not expect that we would change the basic coverage of the code. That probably brings me to the point that there was some earlier criticism, with comments such as 'Why has the government given us these regulations so late in the piece?', or 'Why have we seen the code only at this stage?' Well, there has been a significant consultation process in respect of the code.

A discussion draft of the residential development code was released for consultation back in June for a three-month period. It was released in parallel with the launch of the Planning and Development Review Port. Copies were circulated very widely, and we have had a significant response to that. I think between 40 and 50 local governments responded to the draft code.

In addition, through a joint project between the Department of Planning and Local Government and the Local Government Association, arising out of recommendation 28 of the review, there was a road test of the draft code. This was undertaken in two parts, with the primary work being a review of development applications received in the first quarter of 2008 by local councils, and that covered both metropolitan and country councils. The second part was a workshop held with key industry groups, such as the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association and the Building Designers Association, etc. to brief them on the results of the LGA road test and to canvas their attitude towards the draft code. So, there has been very extensive drafting.

The point is that the draft code has been out for consideration since June this year. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has already referred to one of the key changes, in relation to block size. The original proposed code was for a 350 square metre standard minimum block size. Following the road testing, for various reasons, that has reverted to the development plan size. Some councils actually have smaller blocks than the 350 square metre block, and it would have been rather silly to have the minimum size revert to merit development. There are good reasons for that to revert to the council development plan.

However, in other areas, in most cases, in effect, all this road testing has done is to take things out of the code and put them back into the merit assessment process and, again, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has referred to that. One was the so-called battleaxe or hammerhead developments. I understand that, because of some difficulty in drafting how they might apply, and because of the relatively low numbers, it was deemed that it was easier to take them out of the code.

Similarly, in relation to row dwellings, they have also been taken out. Again, I think the road testing showed that they were 1 per cent or less of all dwellings, so it made sense to take them out. In effect, the changes we have to the regulations should not be that difficult to understand. In most cases, we have taken things out of the code and they have reverted to merit assessment.

This is probably a good time to make the point that the whole purpose of the code is to try to capture those developments that are straight forward. If we are just talking about residential properties that we see in greenfield sites or redevelopment areas around the city and large country towns, in most cases the house owner would choose their house plan at a display village, and most of these houses are standard dwellings. So, really, one has to ask: why should there be a complicated planning assessment for each of those individual houses, providing they fit within the basic parameters and are oriented correctly on the block and meet the basic building rules? Essentially, that is what the code is all about and the motivation behind the code.

As I understand it from the planning review, about 70 per cent of standard residential houses should be able to get through a planning process without any unnecessary or complicated assessment. It should be able to be done as a 'tick the box' process. Of course, that still means that about 30 per cent would still be merit assessed, and that could be because some houses are of a particular style or character that is unusual; or there may be other factors, such as the dwelling is on low lying land, it is in a bushfire area or there is a large amount of cut and fill and so on that requires specific consideration in terms of planning rules.

However, for the vast majority of cases, about 70 per cent of residential housing should be able to fit into a standard format, and the code is really aimed at this type of housing. Again, I make the point that, if the code works to our expectations and those of the planning review, about 30 per cent of dwellings will still require the sort of assessment they receive now. However, about 70 per cent should be able to be assessed through this code. As the road testing exercise that was undertaken shows, most of them would get approval under the existing process.

It is probably also worth noting that one of the points that came out of the road testing is that, of the 822 building applications checked from 11 different councils, both in the city and the country, something like 37 per cent (if I remember the figure correctly) were for alterations. In relation to alterations, there might be a need for building approval if there are structural changes and the like, and that will still apply under the new system, as it always has. But should you not be able to remove planning approval for those sorts of straightforward alterations that happen in about a third or more of cases every day? So, it will be a significant improvement. It is not just new dwellings; it is also alterations.

So, significant work has been done in relation to the development of this code. I have mentioned the road testing. Also, a grant of $500,000 was made to the Local Government Association for consultation on and implementation of the code. This grant included the funds necessary to undertake the road test. It has also assisted in the funding for the presentation of education sessions for local government in late November/early December this year, and it will be used to undertake a review of complying development fees and the preparation and delivery of training material for local government in February/March 2009, assuming this bill passes.

Perhaps at this stage I could answer one of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. He asked why we need to get this bill through the council now. I have already indicated that the regulations under this legislation will, of course, comprise the building code. There will be a more user-friendly document produced that will explain those regulations in a pictorial form which will be much easier to understand, but the underlying support for the code is, of course, the regulations themselves. We need to have those in as close to final form as possible if we are to have the code in place on 1 March next year.

Should the bill not pass the upper house this week, then there are two difficulties. First of all, it would have to go through both houses of parliament in early February before we could meet that deadline. Apart from the difficulties of trying to get the bill through both houses in a short period of time, there is also the potential for amendments in the council. If there are amendments to be made, we really need to know what they are so that we can ensure that the code is in its final form.

If, for example, we did have to amend the code next year, it would be very difficult to meet the starting date. That is why we really need to have the certainty of at least knowing that this enabling legislation will get through the council next year. There can still be some debate on the final form of the code, and I point out that the code, like all other regulations, will ultimately be subject to parliamentary procedures, that is, consideration by the Legislative Review Committee and, ultimately, of course, it can be subject to disallowance. We would hope that that is not the case, and that is why we are consulting on it as widely as we can at this early stage.

However, it is a bit of an iterative process. I cannot guarantee that the code as it is now will be the final form, because there is the potential for amendment of the act, but we want it to be as close as we can so that we can go out and undertake that educative process with local government so that by 1 March next year local government will be ready for the code. Even though the final version cannot become law until February, at least if we know that there will be no major amendments to the act, then we can proceed on the basis that we can meet the 1 March starting date.

Why should we do that? The starting date was set by the Planning and Development Review, but it is important that we start to capture the benefits of this code. As was pointed out by the planning review, there are significant costs involved to the community at large, individual homeowners and local government as well in having a lengthy process of planning development assessment, a process which in many cases does not achieve any particular end. Road testing has indicated that, in relation to the vast majority of applications that go through local government, if you compare what would happen under this code with what happens now, in most cases there would be very little difference in the outcome.

You really have to ask: why should we have such a lengthy procedure which adds to the cost for individuals if in fact it is achieving no objective? So, it is important that we get this up and running as quickly as we can. I remind members that, in 2006-07, Victoria (which has had a code system for some years now) had something like 13,000 or 14,000 fewer planning applications than South Australia did for the same year—and that is for the whole of a state that is three or four times bigger than ours.

However, there were, of course, a considerably larger number of building development applications, which reflects the fact that Victoria has successfully taken out of its system much of the need for unnecessary planning applications. If one looks at the figures, the cost of housing in Melbourne is starting to move closer to that of Adelaide, and it is important for our state's future that we maintain our position as having some of the cheapest housing in Australia.

There are many factors in that, but unnecessary planning delays can certainly be one factor that could reduce our capacity to continue to provide the cheapest housing in Australia. That is why we cannot afford to overlook the opportunity to make those improvements, particularly where experience has shown that this extra delay in the planning system achieves no real objective in terms of changed outcomes.

When the draft code was circulated, there were something like 188 formal submissions. One of the major issues was around the minimum size of allotment, and I have already referred to the fact that that has changed. There were other concerns about setback, and that has also been changed. They were, perhaps, the two most important changes that were made as a result of the process. I will not go through those in detail now; I am sure that anyone interested in this legislation is well aware of them.

There were some other concerns, of course, about character being dealt with through a further extensive process of consultation with councils which will ultimately result in local variations being allowed to the code for certain areas. This will be a complicated process. I announced earlier today in question time the new Unley development plan. That plan will provide significant protection compared to what exists now through regulations, which were introduced today, that put into effect what we call 'replacement controls' where, in designated character areas, changes might adversely impact on the character or the streetscape might be threatened. That is, if you like, a complementary process and, obviously, a lot of work will have to be undertaken in the period up to September next year to identify those areas.

That will be a very demanding and long process, but it is important that we at least get the first stage up and running to ensure that we can get as many as possible of the simple residential developments that do not have complicating planning factors through a code (through a 10-day approval system) because, as I said, that will provide substantial benefits to the community.

There are a number of other points that were raised during the debate and I will try to quickly go through some of those. We can obviously have a more detailed debate next week. From the outset, I make the point that one of the benefits of having a code is consistency. At present, there are as many different interpretations of planning law as there are councils and, in many cases, individuals within those councils who interpret those rules. One of the benefits of the code is that we will get a greater level of consistency in planning assessment across the state. There will be significant benefits also to local government. Planners, who are in short supply around the state—and, indeed, around the country—will have less need to involve themselves in considering fairly elementary and straightforward residential applications and will instead be able to use their time on the more complicated and difficult issues where they should be using their expertise.

The overall aim of the bill and the code is to facilitate the timely assessment of applications for matters which could reasonably be expected to involve a residential zone. As I have indicated in previous answers to questions when these matters have come up, the residential code is not of itself a tool to achieve greater urban density. As the Hon. Robert Brokenshire again pointed out, the way in which the government policy seeks to do that is more through transit oriented development and locations suitable for high density, in particular, rather than to do it across the board through the suburban area. So the code is not about density: it is about more timely and more efficient assessment.

The Hon. Mark Parnell raised a number of issues. He talked about category 1 and the council not being able to notify adjoining owners. The fact is that for category 1 development, which most residential development is, of course there are no rights of appeal for complying development. There has been a practice whereby some councils have decided to notify neighbours in relation to category 1—for example, it might be a garage being built on a property—to try to shift the political issues, if you like. They have consulted even though there was no requirement to do so and, as a result of that consultation, there could be no impact whatsoever on the final outcome.

The courts have, as the Hon. Mark Parnell himself mentioned, criticised that practice. I suspect the reason some councils have been doing that is to avoid taking the hard decision. At the end of the day, these people have no rights and, really, if society has decided in relation to a block of land that, provided what you build on it complies with various basic parameters, you should be able to build on your block, what is the point of having objections which really can have no legal impact? The practice simply unnecessarily delays the approval process and that, in turn, will add costs for, again, no benefit at the end of the process.

The Hon. Mark Parnell spoke about requests for more information being restricted to one opportunity. The changes to the regulations associated with the code will involve very specific information required to assess the application. Schedule 5 currently applies to building rules information. That will be changed to require the applicant to provide greater levels of information for planning purposes. A council can decide not to accept the application if not all information is provided. If the applicant has provided all the required information, then the application should be dealt with within the time frames. So, there has been this issue raised about 'stop the clock'. Again, I will not waste too much time on it now but, clearly, councils are entitled to have all the information they need in assessing an application.

However, we should not have the practice which we see from time to time where, for various reasons, councils or other planning approval bodies will keep going back to the applicant requiring more information. Of course, conversely, applicants also need to provide all the information that is required if they are to expect to have their application assessed swiftly, and the changes made in this act seek that outcome. Provided the applicant supplies all the required information, then the application should be dealt with within the time frames, and that is the underlying principle we are seeking to achieve here.

The Hon. Mark Parnell also referred to clause 9 of the bill relating to the time for a decision to be made. Where the statutory time is exceeded, the applicant can choose whether the application is refused. This is at the discretion of the applicant. If the ability is used, the applicant could then seek recourse through an appeal process in the courts. I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire also asked a similar question. He asked: why is there deemed refusal rather than (as I think was suggested by at least one other member during the debate) deemed approval? The reason is that, if the statutory time frame is exceeded because refusal is deemed at the discretion of the applicant, the ability can then be used for applicants to seek recourse by means of an appeal process through the courts.

I will see from my notes whether I have answered all the issues raised by members. The Leader of the Opposition did ask a question about minor variations. There has been some significant debate about putting that particular part within the bill. The short answer to the question is that, obviously, case law will ultimately settle what is a minor variation; but, obviously, the provision is there so that, if someone complies in every respect other than, perhaps, some dimensions (and it could be for all sorts of reasons that it is slightly outside the parameters), if the council deems that to be a minor variation it can approve it.

Of course, if someone had an objection, that might ultimately be challenged in court and ultimately case law would settle that outcome. I believe the provision there is important because there will be cases where one size will not fit all, where there will need to be genuine minor variations, that is, those with dimensions that are of relatively small proportion. I think that practice and case law will ultimately determine the outcome there. If the honourable member wants to explore that issue further during committee, my advisers can probably much better advise me on the legal aspects. Essentially, case law will settle it, but it is important that you do allow the capacity for minor changes.

I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked whether consultation in respect of future changes to the code would apply. Since the code itself is the regulations, obviously, the normal parliamentary procedures would apply, that is, they would go through the Legislative Review Committee, and, of course, ultimately either house of parliament could disallow the regulations. Clearly, in the first instance, we are hoping to get an understanding of the residential code in terms of a high level of acceptance. At some stage in the future it may be necessary to make changes to the code, but I think that will all come out in the wash once the code has had some time to be in operation.

Of course, we would obviously have high expectations for the benefits it would achieve, and, obviously, we will be monitoring that. Certainly, in the first instance, we want to make the code as simple as possible. We do not want to complicate it unnecessarily. As a result of the experience of working with this code, it will be up to future governments, if they wish, to extend the code based on, hopefully, the success of its operation over the next year or two. That is something that will be considered by the government of the day.

The final point was raised by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, and if I have not covered everything we can deal with it in committee. The honourable member talked about rainwater tank size. I refer the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to clause 8 of the draft residential code and 'water tanks above ground', which would apply under the code. The construction, alteration of or addition to a water tank in the appropriate zones where the code applies can take place and can be exempt if the tank has a total floor area not exceeding 15 square metres and no part of the tank is higher than four metres above the natural surface of the ground.

If you put those together, that can give a maximum of 60 cubic metres, which means that 60 kilolitres of water can be supplied. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire also made a number of other comments about water conservation and other issues. I make the general comment here that most of those issues will be determined, of course, under the building code. However, the government is currently working (through the federal ministerial council) to develop more appropriate sustainability indicators which can operate right across the board. The government at this stage sees that those water efficiency and energy efficiency requirements would apply principally through the building code.

The planning review is a very important initiative for this state. Again, I thank those members for their thoughtful contributions during debate, and I look forward to our completing this important measure through this council next week.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I did not propose that we would go beyond clause 1 today. It is just an opportunity for any member who has complex questions which they may wish to ask now to do so, and, if I do not have an answer now, I will endeavour to have that ready by next Tuesday when we resume debate.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I did want to put a couple of further questions on the record. I thank the minister for the responses he has given to the issues raised in his second reading speech. The minister did talk about consultation that had been conducted in relation to the residential code. I caught the vast majority of what the minister said in his second reading speech, but I apologise if he covered some of these issues and I did not hear, as I was distracted. I am interested in knowing what process the government will go through in relation to the further finetuning of the code, but, more importantly, further reincarnations of the code, because clearly it is a document that will be amended over time.

We know that the Local Government Association has asked for an amendment that requires it to be consulted in relation to future changes to the code. I think a similar valid call could be made by the Planning Institute and perhaps other groups as well. I would like the minister to consider and bring back a response on whether we could legislate to ensure that changes to this code go through a similar process of public consultation to that which a development plan would go through on amendment. The reason I say that is that we have a legislative regime here where the residential code will prevail over the development plan.

The development plan (under statute) has to go through a process of public consultation, including a call for submissions, a public meeting and even a very minor level of scrutiny by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament. It seems to me that a very valid claim could be made to say that this document is so important that, when it is proposed to change it, it should go through at least as rigorous a process. That is my first set of questions.

The second issue relates to the application of the residential code. Perhaps the minister has covered it and either I have not heard or not properly understood. It seems that there are a couple of different approaches. There was an approach in the original consultation draft that went out, which was a list of different zones in different council areas which would be covered by the residential code, with a further overlay of some exclusions in relation to heritage type areas. That is one approach.

Another approach is to say, 'Well, the whole of the state is covered' and then just have some exclusions. I want the minister to clarify that I have the correct understanding of the current approach, which is taken from version 7 (I think)—I have not checked with version 10—of the regulations. In schedule 4 under the heading of new dwellings, subclause (1) states that, subject to subclause (4), this clause applies in relation to any area determined by the minister for the purposes of this clause and identified by notice in the Gazette.

Will the minister, at some future date, determine which parts of South Australia are to be covered by the residential code; and, as a follow-up question to that, will the minister clarify what process of public consultation the government will go through in relation to changing the list of areas, whether that is a list of council areas or a list of zones within council areas?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Clearly, the big task ahead of us now is to identify character areas. I mean, obviously we would like the code to apply to as broad an area as possible. Specifically, we have excluded historic conservation zones and the like, and also some areas such as, for example, I think high fire risk areas where CFS approval or other approvals are required because a number of areas have been specifically excluded. We would want the code then to apply to the rest of the state but, of course, we have also talked about character areas.

I did announce earlier today what we have done in relation to Unley, and I am sure that, when it comes before the ERD Committee, the honourable member will find what has been done there interesting and be surprised at how much work has been involved. There is a huge volume of work. Clearly, the inner city councils will have many more of these issues than probably those councils with greenfield development where it will not be such an issue. Obviously that will be a process through which we will have to work in the next 10 months.

Certainly, the planning review was suggesting 1 September as the date for which a modified code should apply to character areas. First, there is the task of getting the code up and running for those areas that are not specifically excluded, but identifying character areas is really the next big exercise that will involve local government. Some councils like Unley are very well advanced. I think it would be fair to say that most councils have that process well underway, but obviously that is something that will have to be expedited by those councils.

It is my understanding that, after 1 March next year, the code will have the most effect on alterations and additions. Unless a council specifically enables the code to work—and we would hope they would do that in greenfield areas at least or areas where there are not heritage and character areas—then it may apply for new dwellings as well, but we believe that the main impact will be for additions at least until 1 September next year. It is after that point, when the character areas are identified, that it will have a much broader impact. There is still a long way to go and a lot of work to be done, but it is important that we at least begin the process.

Finally, the honourable member talked about the future upgrading of the code. At this stage, obviously we have more than enough to do in identifying these tasks, such as character and so on, but the planning review recommended an annual review of the code and I think that the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) undertakes that annual review, so that will be the process.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just so that I have this clear: in relation to new dwellings, is 1 September the date by which councils need to have identified those areas where they do not believe that the code should apply? So, they have until 1 September to identify their character areas, or perhaps it is already zoned as historic, conservation, or some similar type of zone.

First, can the minister clarify that I have understood that? Secondly, in relation to areas that might subsequently be identified as having character, I am interested in the process of consultation and engagement between the state and local councils in relation to identifying character areas, or unidentifying them perhaps. If they want to be taken off the list and they want the code to apply, how will that process work, and is the government prepared to mandate a level of consultation with councils?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I should have said that, although the new modified code will not be in place until 1 September (and this work has been going on, as I said, for some time now), councils have been given until 31 March, on my understanding, to try to identify those areas. But clearly, from the experience that we have had at Unley, if one does it to the level that has occurred in some of those inner city councils, obviously it may be a much greater task than perhaps for councils where most of their area was established post Second World War, or at later stages, for example.

I am mindful of that fact, and obviously I will be interested to hear from councils about how they are going in the process, but certainly at this stage the planning review's recommendation is that we should operate under this time line. I have not yet heard from any council that it is having trouble meeting it; clearly for some of those councils with high levels of character it may be an issue, but I have an open mind on that. I certainly hope that the vast majority of councils will be able to comply within those time frames.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I come relatively new to this debate and certainly I do not claim any expertise (as my colleague the Hon. Mr Parnell obviously might, with some justification) in this particular area. The perspective that I bring is an involvement and association, in particular, with the Norwood area, and I am indebted to the hard work of the Liberal candidate for Norwood (Steven Marshall), who I know has been working with my colleagues—the Hon. Mr Ridgway, the member for Bragg and others—to try to protect the interests of Norwood, St Peters and Payneham. But, as I said, also I myself have an association of some longstanding with the Norwood area.

First, to clarify the question that the Hon. Mr Ridgway asked—and I was not absolutely clear on the minister's answer: is this residential code disallowable by either house of parliament in exactly the same way as any existing regulation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is certainly my understanding. It does come in as a regulation—at least, the specific details. Many of the features of the Development Act, of course, are already prescribed in regulation, or perhaps through development plans, which are in turn authorised under the Development Act. So, perhaps a short summary about what the code does is that it would take what might be now 68 or 69 different development plans for each council out of council areas around the state and it tries to take those uncomplicated matters—those uncontroversial matters—and unify them. So, rather than having to look up 69 different codes for the project-type home (the conventional sort of house that people might buy), the objective here is to try to get a code that will apply across the whole state.

Of course, where that becomes more complicated is in the heritage areas, character areas, or where there are special features, such as flood plains, steep areas, bushfire zones, and so on. So, we have tried to exempt all of those, but for at least 70 per cent of the state (70 per cent of homes) that is our objective: to get the code applying to them because for those, at least, a one-size-fits-all approach should be able to adequately deal with any planning issues.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that the point for the record then is that ultimately, should this legislation pass both houses of parliament, then persons concerned with the residential code in the Norwood area—or, indeed, in any other area—do have the capacity to lobby their members of parliament and political parties to disallow the residential code, when it is laid on the table, if they are opposed strenuously to the provisions of that code as it might impact on areas such as Norwood.

I understand that the minister said earlier, in response to questions asked by other members, that one of the recent changes was that he had taken block sizes out of the residential code and that would now remain the subject of council development plans. Is that an accurate assessment of what the minister said?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The position is that you can have either your existing allotment—and some of them might be 200 metres or 1,000 metres or more, depending on where they are—or the default, if you like, which is what applies in the council development plan. For example, I think in Burnside the minimum size is 550 in one of the zones.

So, in some sense defaulting back to that takes away from the benefits the code would have of one-size-fits-all but, given the complexity of what we are dealing with, I think it makes sense in that one area—at least—to default back to the development plans.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was one of the criticisms from areas like Norwood and others. I understand the minister has responded to that by taking minimum block sizes out of what was to be the residential code and either putting them back or leaving them (I am not sure of the correct phrase) in the council development plans—which is, I think, what the minister just said.

I would also like to ask whether the minister has done the same thing with the issue of site coverage. That is, has he taken that out of the residential code (where it was to be originally) and left that in or put that into the council development plans as well?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; we have not. I think in most cases what the code said would be pretty well consistent. It does vary between council areas, but that is one area where we expect the code to apply. As I said, there is no purpose in having a code if you start going back to that and revert everything back to an individual assessment or an individual area. However, where it is necessary on a few basic parameters, such as block size and setbacks, that is where we do have differences from area to area, and that can still be considered under a tick-the-box system of planning assessment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I stand to be corrected on this, but I understand our Liberal Party position to be that the site coverage should be removed from the residential code; however, I will explore that issue with the shadow minister. For example, my understanding of the Norwood Payneham St Peters position in relation to site coverage (and this is its argument) is that site coverage of 60 or 70 per cent in some areas is excessively high and has the potential to impact significantly on the established character of an area. The City of Norwood Payneham St Peters currently applies a site coverage standard of between 40 and 50 per cent, depending on the area, to reflect the established character and setting of a location.

If I understand correctly what the minister is saying, and if the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council is correct in terms of the government's proposition, the government's view in terms of site coverage will be significantly different to the current strong position in Norwood and of its residents' associations and other groups that support that proposition in that particular character area.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the point that needs to be made is that the front set-back is, essentially, set by the development plan. That is one of the changes. The front set-back is, in many ways, one of the key parameters in determining character. I have discovered a lot about planning, and I suspect that after this debate there will be a lot more MPs who understand planning law a lot better than they did. In the past I think most of us have tried to know as little about it as possible.

Set-backs are certainly one of the key parameters in defining character. Norwood Payneham and St Peters council, like Unley, covers an area in which a significant proportion of the suburb was built pre Second World War. It is up to the council where to put it but, clearly, where character is important the code will not apply. So, if site coverage becomes a factor in determining character—as, indeed, the front set-back is a key parameter—then the code may not apply. Obviously, that is one of the big issues we have to resolve with the inner city councils. The code can be varied for character areas, and it is all part of the process to take those issues into account.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand it (and I think the minister is confirming it, in part), under this residential code, for which he is seeking support, whereas the Norwood and Payneham council in a particular area would apply a site coverage standard between 40 and 50 per cent, the minister would allow a site coverage of 60 or 70 per cent—which is quite contrary to the current practices of Norwood. I believe that is the Norwood complaint about the government's proposition, and the minister now confirms that that will still stay in the residential code. I invite the minister's response, because I understand that Norwood is mightily concerned about the government's intentions (which the minister seems to have confirmed here this afternoon) in relation to keeping site coverage in the residential code.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Again, the code will only apply in certain areas. In relation to character areas—and it will be the inner city suburbs, such as Unley, Norwood and Walkerville where it is a particular issue—if the councils do their work and identify them as character, large sectors of those suburbs will be exempted from the code; it will not apply. If the code does not apply then it will revert to the rules that apply now.

I have also been advised that the City of Norwood Payneham St Peters does not have a site coverage standard at all under its development plan for suburbs such as Payneham and Felixstow.

Again, there are some areas where it does not have a site coverage standard, so that would not be an issue, but we have to be very careful here in defining the areas we are talking about. The government has been careful through the whole process. Right from day one we could exempt heritage areas. Heritage conservation zones are clearly outside the code and it should not apply in those areas, but we accepted that, in addition to what are defined and well-known heritage areas, there will also be character areas.

Today I talked about Unley, where up to about 45 per cent of its total area is inside a streetscape zone. Depending on the process it has followed, that area is likely to be exempt from the code because it has done its work on identifying the character and parameters. Alternatively, there may be a code, but it will be a code that will pick up character within that area. With character we are looking more at streetscape, which is what we are trying to preserve more than what happens in people's backyards.

One of the benefits of the code is that, if someone has a house in a character area, if they are not proposing to alter the streetscape but want to modernise the kitchen, bathroom or whatever out the back, why should they go through a complicated planning process, providing it complies with all the general parameters? Why should they potentially spend months getting planning approval for it? If, however, they wish to change the streetscape, that is different, and that is where the work the government is now doing in relation to streetscape will apply.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In summary, is the minister prepared to give a guarantee that, if the Council of Norwood Payneham St Peters decides that it wants to continue with a 40 to 50 per cent site coverage area for the Norwood part (forget about Payneham and Felixstow, which came from the amalgamation of councils into that council area), that council will be allowed to make that decision and continue that under the legislation and the residential code that he is proposing?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If the Norwood council puts up those suburbs as character—and it will have to do the work to define 'character', because, after all, we have hundreds of complaints at the moment from people who are living in areas where most of the housing is traditional, for example, built before the Second World War. I will not get into a debate about where character starts and finishes, but if they are in a house that was built 100 years ago and if there is a vacant block next door and somebody wants to build a modern house that is totally incompatible with the character of the area, which can cause a lot of distress to many residents, with the controls we have introduced today in Unley through the development plan Unley will have much greater control over the facade of the development that takes place in that area.

In relation to Norwood Payneham St Peters, if it wishes to identify its areas as character, it will have to do the work. That is exactly what the provisions in the government's policy are aimed at: to allow that to happen and to accept that, within certain character areas, particularly the inner city areas, large proportions of those councils need a different treatment to reflect the character. We do not want to produce a blank cheque without the work having been done on certain areas. We do not want a situation where every council says that this suburb was built in the 1950s with double detached Housing Trust homes, that is the character of the area and therefore it should be exempt from the code. Clearly, that would defeat the whole purpose, but the exercise we are going through is clearly aimed at councils such as Unley, Norwood and other inner city councils which have a high proportion of buildings built before the Second World War.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We will have more time next week to pursue this issue, but I am concerned on behalf of those who have lobbied me that the minister, for the reasons he has given, is unable to give that guarantee to the people in Norwood.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, they have made this submission to you. I am reading from their submission to you. I am not an expert in this area, but I have been lobbied in relation to the interests of Norwood. I am reading from their submission to the minister, and I was just seeking a guarantee from the minister. The minister has given his response and I will not enter into argy bargy as we can do that next week.

They have not seen the most recent version of it, but they will have the opportunity of seeing the minister's response to at least these initial questions today. The minister keeps coming back and saying 'if they do the work' and 'if they become a character area'. Ultimately who makes that final decision? Does the council make the decision whether the Norwood area is a character area, the minister or some other body? They might do all the work and believe they are a character area, and everybody in the area thinks it is a character area, but the minister or somebody else might say, 'We don't think you are, and therefore you cannot use these particular provisions.'

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously, the minister would determine it finally, and we have processes to deal with that. That is the case now: the minister can veto any development plan that comes up for change. It is already the case that the minister ultimately determines it, but that is not to say that ministers do not take into consideration the recommendations of various bodies. When it comes to heritage areas, we have the Development Policy Advisory Committee which, incidentally—to go back to the question asked earlier by the Hon. Mark Parnell—will annually review the code, and that will involve a public process.

There are subcommittees, such as the Local Heritage Advisory Committee (LHAC) and so on. So, as planning minister, I am dealing all the time with development plan amendments which consider which houses should and should not be on a local heritage list, and there is a significant amount of work involved with that process. The minister has the final say, but there are a number of advisory bodies and the like to deal with, and we are looking at that process.

However, the important thing to come out of this is that the government wants to come up with a system that makes it easier for those people who might want to renovate their kitchen or do something in the backyard of their home. Even if it is a so-called character home, they should be able to do that as easily as possible and with as little red tape as possible, provided they are not violating any of the basic rules. But, at the same time, we want to protect the character of suburbs.

Some of the most vocal critics of the code are those who bemoan what is happening in the suburbs now, and I say to them, 'Yes, but all of these things you are saying the code will allow are actually happening in the suburbs now.' I draw members' attention to what is being done in Unley today.

I believe the additional levels of character protection will give much greater protection to those sorts of areas than currently exists. It is not as though there is a great deal of protection at the moment, outside of local heritage properties and heritage conservation areas. Really, if people are knocked back and appeal to the courts, all sorts of structures can be built in those suburbs which residents do not like. That is happening now, and that is the cause of much consternation to people in the suburbs.

What we are trying to do is have our cake and eat it, too, by ensuring that additions and the like can be dealt with more speedily and therefore more cheaply, but at the same time ensuring that we do not have the construction of buildings that violate the character of those special areas that give Adelaide the character it has.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has confirmed that the issue of site coverage stays in the residential code. Under this latest change, does the issue of distance from boundaries stay in the residential code, or have block sizes been taken out of the residential code and left with the council development plans?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The code prescribes side setbacks, but front setbacks, which are the most important, have been taken out of the code.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The distance from the front boundary has been taken out of the code, but the distance from side boundaries and rear boundaries stays?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: For side boundaries, there is a code. Indeed, if you go around to any council area at the moment, contrary to what many people will tell you, you will see that houses are increasingly being built up against boundaries. That is because land is becoming more scarce in Adelaide and the pressure is on, and that is broadly happening throughout the city now. It needs to be understood that the code is trying to encapsulate what is permitted in the vast majority of development plans now—something that you would get through most councils of Adelaide.

However, there are a number of variations council to council. One of the benefits of the code is that, where you can get it to apply, you will get some uniformity in those basic planning rules. A builder who wants to build has to look up the relevant code, and there are all sorts of variations between councils, although I would say they are relatively minor. What we are trying to do is capture a formula that will cover at least 70 per cent of residences.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have a question of clarification. In Norwood, for example, where some of the blocks are up to 60 metres deep, one of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that, under the minister's proposal in relation to side boundaries, a wall up to three metres high and 30 metres long (that is, up to 50 per cent), right up against the boundary, would automatically be allowed. So, you would have a wall up against your property which is three metres high and 30 metres long, in essence, as an automatic part of the minister's code. Is that correct?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, there are really two answers to that question. Again, it depends on whether or not the code applies. I make the point that in some of those inner city areas they will probably have larger areas exempted from the code compared to other areas, to reflect character; or at least they will have modifications to the code to reflect character. That always needs to be said.

I know where the Hon. Rob Lucas is coming from in relation to looking at Norwood, and I know why he is asking these questions. However, it always needs that caveat that at least a modified code may well apply to a significant proportion of suburbs such as Unley, Norwood, Walkerville, Prospect and the like that do have particular features. There were modifications to the original proposed code in relation to side settings. The major change was that, if the building was up against the alignment on one side, it would have to be set back from the alignment on the other side.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a matter of who gets there first has the advantage?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is interesting if you are talking about Norwood. The interesting thing that defines Norwood's character and the thing that people want to protect in their heritage is actually in many cases walls touching or very close together. That is, in many ways, the character of Norwood, but that is another story.

Any member who wants to look at this should drive around the suburbs of Adelaide and see the new homes that people are building in Burnside, Mitcham, Norwood, Unley and other suburbs. They will see that, given that increasingly people are looking for smaller block sizes (which reflects different family formation and reflects the high price of land), people are building up to the block alignment. The vast majority of houses I would suggest built in the past 10 years, at least, do build, at least on one side, up to the alignment. If you go out and look at new developments, that is what you will see.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My understanding and reading of the bill was that, in the example that the Hon. Mr Lucas gave where a wall could be built on a boundary—and he gave the example of a 60 metre long block of land—the wall could be no more than eight metres long in any one section. That was my understanding; is that correct?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I thank the honourable member for his information. Yes; he is correct. That was the point I was going to make. Again, the point is that in relation to specific suburbs and council areas we have a high proportion of character areas—and those, very roughly speaking, are pre-Second World War construction—and obviously different rules will and should apply to those areas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy for the minister to just give me a reference as to where that eight metre provision is. The document that council has given me argues that the code would allow 20 to 30 metre long boundary walls. Is that a change in the most recent draft of the code or was it in the original one and Norwood, Payneham and St Peters was ill-advised?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am looking at the most recent version in respect of new dwellings. Clause 2B(5)(d) provides:

(5)(d) in relation to any wall to be located on a side boundary of the site associated with the development

(i) the wall will not exceed 3 meters in height; and

(ii) the wall will not exceed 8 metres in length; and

(iii) the wall, when its length is added to the length of any other walls or structures located on that boundary—

(A) will not result in all such walls and structures exceeding a length equal to 50 per cent of the length of the boundary, disregarding any front setback

Again, I think if one looks at what is actually happening in practice and what people are getting approval for from all of our councils—including those that have a reputation (deserved or otherwise) as being difficult— then that is exactly what is happening in those areas now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to clarify, is the minister saying you could have an eight metre wall and then a gap of how long before you can have another eight metre wall, and if you have a 60 metre block you can have 3½ of them?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It goes on:

(B) will not be within 3 metres of any other wall or structure located along the boundary;

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand it, what the minister is saying is that you could have an eight metre wall three metres high then a three metre gap and then you could have another eight metre wall three metres high and you can have 3½ of those on a 60 metre block. At least that clarifies it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It cannot exceed subparagraph A, which provides:

will not result in all such walls and structures exceeding a length equal to 50 per cent of the length of the boundary, disregarding any front setback.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, in the case I referred to where you have a 60 metre block, the maximum size would be 30 metres, so you could have as many lots of eight metres separated by three metres as complies with that. In his response, the minister referred to an earlier question that—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, why one would necessarily do it—it does not mean people will actually build it. The code provides maximums whereby some of the parameters in the code will be the maximum and some of them may be the minimum.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister indicated earlier that, if you have a neighbour who has built one of these eight metre three metre walls separated by three metres on one side of you, under this proposal it means that the neighbour on the other side cannot do the same thing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; it does not mean that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thought the minister was referring earlier to the fact that if you had a property you could not have this happen to you on both sides. Is the minister saying that, on both sides of your property, you could have your neighbours building up to the boundary line in the way that we have just been discussing?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I indicated earlier, if you are building on one boundary, then you cannot build on the other. What your neighbour can do is, of course, another matter.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The last area that I just want to raise today—as I said, we will have more time next week—is that the Norwood people have spoken to me expressing concerns about being able to build a two-storey development extension at the front of a particular property under the former version of the code that they were commenting on. Can the minister confirm that that particular complaint has been resolved in the latest version of the code that he has now provided?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The latest version of the code, if I can refer to—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have found it and will read it. It says:

This enables an addition on an existing dwelling to be located at the front of a dwelling, which could have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. This, in conjunction with performance control 6.1 and 6.2, means that a two-storey addition at the front of a dwelling would be complying, even in a character area which is predominantly single storey. Additions to the front of a dwelling should not be included in the residential code, particularly in a character area.

That was the complaint from the Norwood Payneham St Peters council to the earlier versions of the code.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As part of the new code, I refer to 2A(2)(n) which states that the development will not alter the external appearance of a facade of a building to a substantial degree. The converse of that, of course, is that, if it does alter the external appearance of the facade to a substantial degree, it would not be allowed by the code. It would have to go back to merit assessment—where, of course, it may or may not be approved, anyway.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, are you saying that, in the example that I have given, that has now been fixed?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I believe that would cover it. In addition, you cannot encroach on the front setback, so there is a front setback. If you cannot encroach on the front setback and you cannot alter the external appearance, that would not be code-compliant. So, again, it would revert to merit. Again, the point needs to be made that a lot of the things happening now might very well go through the system. It may go in for merit assessment and the council may or may not approve it, depending on the planner on the particular day; or you might appeal to the court and the court might say to go ahead. So it is not as though these things are not happening now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that. As I said, I hope the answers he has provided, when we circulate them to interests in Norwood, will resolve many of the concerns people in Norwood have. Certainly, in terms of recent lobbying, there has been a lot of concern from residents of Norwood at the government's proposals.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am just there to help. As I said, I know Steven Marshall has been working very hard with the local interests to try to resolve this issue in the best interests of the people of Norwood St Peters Payneham. So, I thank the minister for those answers and I hope that they will satisfy the concerns but, if they do not, we will obviously have an opportunity next week to pursue the interests of the electors of Norwood St Peters Payneham.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: By way of brief comment, as someone who has personally been involved in attempting to get something through Norwood council, I have a great deal of experience in this matter. Well, perhaps 'a great deal' is overstating it, but certainly I have some experience in this matter.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, more than one, I would say. My experience on this particular issue of the setback of a second storey was that there were many examples in the very suburb that I was dealing with—in fact, in many cases, in the very street that I was dealing with—of two-storey houses where there was not setback of the second storey but, for some completely arbitrary reason—as far as I could determine, anyway—Norwood council had determined that it was somehow desirable that the second storey should have a three metre setback from the bottom storey to the top storey (that is, the ground floor to the first floor), despite the fact that many old two-storey villas built 100 years ago all had a perfectly flat face. The original two-storey villas were built with a flat face with often a verandah or balcony along the top.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But, Dennis, you wanted a six-storey private residence.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, it was a comfortable dwelling but certainly not a mansion, by any stretch. But the point is: I see no reason at all why the first storey should be set back by three metres. Who says that has anything to do with a heritage building? In fact, the reality is that many modern buildings are built with the first storey setback and, if anything, I think it is a detriment to the area. That is my personal view. Anyway, I thought I would place those comments on the record.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to building on boundary alignments, which the Hon. Rob Lucas was exploring earlier, from my understanding of the minister's comments you can build on only one boundary of an allotment. However, the alignment is a shared alignment. I will try to get the minister to visualise it. If I own an allotment and my neighbour decides to build on the alignment on my right-hand side, does that mean that my neighbour on my left-hand side is not able to build on the alignment on his side and that it has to be further away, or can you actually build out the person in the middle?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, you can build on either, but only one. Let us face it, the reality is that most of those houses are going to be within existing areas. The major benefit of the code is going to come about in greenfield areas; it will not be in areas such as Norwood. However, if people are making straightforward additions, where the code applies there it will be a significant advantage—and to the community at large because of cost.

But the point I was going to make is that most of the houses you are getting in those areas are maisonettes or semi-detached places, and presumably the builder will come and in the most expensive real estate they will often abut on one side, and that will be the sort of development that will be put up in those areas. That is happening now.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The lesson is: build on your own boundary first before your neighbours do.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It does not make any difference. You can build on one or the other side; you cannot build on both.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I accept what you are saying, that you cannot build on both, but if you are the landowner in the middle—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, let me finish. You can be the person in the middle who chooses not to build on at all, but your neighbour on your right-hand side builds on the alignment and the neighbour on your left-hand side builds on the alignment so—because the alignment is shared: it is not like it is a 900-millimetre setback but is like the garden fence—effectively, you can be sitting in the middle. From what I understand you are saying now, the neighbours on either side can both build on the alignment and not on the other alignment on the other side of their property. So they comply with the code by having built on their alignments but you, by virtue of being in the middle, are built on both sides.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not luck. Are you suggesting—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Is the Liberal Party policy now saying—and I guess that is where they are leading to—that there shall be no adjoining houses? That is the logical consequence of what you are saying. If you take it to its logical conclusion, you will be saying that no houses will ever abut. If that is your policy on the Development Act, you should think long and hard before you put that policy up. You should think that through long and hard.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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