HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL OF EXTERNAL PAINTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 February 2009. Page 1226.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:16): I rise again on behalf of the opposition to speak to this bill, which was introduced in the other place by the member for Light (Mr Tony Piccolo) on 27 November 2008. It is interesting to note that this bill amends the Development Act, and the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, the minister in charge of that act, is in this chamber. That poses some questions: for example, if this measure is to be supported by the government, why on earth is the minister not introducing it in this chamber, with Mr Piccolo being given carriage of it in the other chamber. I guess it is a little like having to ask why we have a select committee in the other place that is looking into building surveyors when the minister and shadow minister responsible are members of this chamber, but the government seems to be hiding it in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am now talking about the select committee you are hiding in the House of Assembly.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway would be better off talking about the bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am sorry, Mr President, but I was a little distracted there. Mr Piccolo, I think, made a pledge to his community when he was elected that he would introduce this legislation, and I think his particular interest was heritage values on the main street in the town of Gawler. His personal endeavour to do this is the reason for the bill being introduced, and it is interesting to note that the relevant government minister is a member of this chamber.

This bill proposes a quite small technical change to the act: the definition of 'development' is extended to include 'external painting'. The effect of the bill would be that any council may apply to create a declared zone, to be approved by the minister. Such a declaration would instigate the following: a change of land use requiring a development application would deal with any external painting as a development in its own right. If there is no change in land use following, say, the sale of a property, no application would be needed for external painting.

The original bill was aimed at commercial properties but, nevertheless, had the potential to capture residential properties alike. It is not uncommon for residential property to be used to run a business, and this legislation has the potential to cause unnecessary red tape in such circumstances. I communicated that concern to Mr Piccolo, and he drafted an amendment that stopped the measure extending to a building used wholly or predominantly for residential purposes.

At a fundamental level, this bill contradicts the basic directions of the planning review by adding minor matters and creating lengthy delays in the development assessment system. This is an example of regulatory creep since the last major review in 1993, which has produced a planning system overwhelmed with minor and low-risk matters, creating backlogs and lengthy, unnecessary delays that stifle economic growth and place an unnecessary financial burden on the community. Therefore, supporting this legislation would be at odds with the Liberal vision of reducing red tape through implementation of a residential development code.

While we accept that the bill was designed to address a specific situation, we believe that it will significantly increase the volume of planning applications being considered by local government, introducing further complexity and inevitably resulting in detailed prescriptive criteria being developed to control paint colour and combinations. Furthermore, we believe it is likely to result in the preparation of acceptable colour pallets by councils for heritage or prescribed areas, which will limit choice and result in homogenous colour schemes that will be uninspiring, uniform and predictable.

Once introduced, there will be considerable pressure from some of the more established councils (for example, Norwood, Unley, Burnside, Mitcham, etc.) to prescribe paint control provisions in such areas as character areas or for contributory buildings, once again considerably increasing the volume of applications and prescriptive and onerous controls imposed on the community.

The issue of external paint controls is a perennial issue that often arises when, I think, about .001 per cent of the population chooses to apply a bold and striking colour scheme to a building or dwelling, creating an overwhelming response from the community and local government to seek external paint controls.

In these circumstances, there will be an inevitable growth in areas with prescribed external paint controls, and the whole community will suffer increased red tape, bureaucracy, delays and expense to address a minor issue that is rare and often inconsequential.

This legislative change could result in planning assessments for paint control based on the individual taste or preferred style of the local government planners, rather than objective assessment of planning merit. With those comments, I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting Mr Piccolo's bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:21): I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting this bill. I can understand the member for Light's concern for preserving heritage areas, and I agree that there needs to be some protection for the painting over of heritage items. I note that section 4(1)(e) of the Development Act includes painting as needing development approval for state heritage properties.

I think that extending this to all external painting of commercial items in heritage zoned areas will place an undue burden on business. One can envisage a situation where a well-known business would be potentially unable to use its corporate colours that make its business easily identifiable to members of the public and where colour is a significant part of its brand.

Just this morning, I was driving down the Parade, Norwood, which is part of a heritage conservation zone, and I noted that the colours with which businesses painted the front of their premises, whether it be Beaurepaires, Pulse Automotive or even the local pawnbroking shop, did not detract at all from the heritage feel of the area. I am not encouraged by the support for this bill from the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council. In my experience, it is one of the worst offenders in terms of stymieing development by delays in the process.

I note the anomaly outlined by the member for Light in his second reading explanation: if there is a change of land use, development approval is required; if there is not, no development approval is needed. I, too, think that this is an anomaly. However, I do not think that an amendment such as this to the Development Act is the way to achieve this; it is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I am surprised that the government is supportive of this measure, given the very extensive planning reforms implemented by it earlier this year, which I supported and which aimed to streamline the development process and remove some of the hurdles currently faced by people wanting to make minor changes and additions to their properties. This bill seems like a backward step in the government's initiative to streamline and cut red tape involved in the development process, and I will not be supporting it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (21:23): I would like to thank those honourable members who made a contribution to this debate. I think it might be useful, at this point, for me to briefly summarise the main points of this bill because I think that some of it has been lost between the original introduction of the bill into this chamber and our debate today.

The bill seeks to amend the definition of 'development' to include the external painting of a building within an area prescribed by the regulations. If passed, the bill will enable regulations to be introduced that prescribe areas where the external painting of buildings becomes development for the purposes of the Development Act.

It is important to note that this will not impose restrictions on local government authorities and councils unless they wish to avail themselves of those provisions. They will not be imposed on council; council will have the ability to ask the minister to make regulations on its behalf in this regard.

It is envisaged, and the bill limits its application to non-residential purposes, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway indicated, that the prescribed areas would be commercial areas only within historic conservation zones. This would afford streetscapes more protection from painting which detracts from other buildings in a street and, importantly, removes an existing anomaly in the application of the Development Act where there is no change in land use but a change in tenancy of landowner.

If there is a change in land use, the Development Act comes into play and external painting is caught, but if there is no change in the use of the building, with a new tenant coming in, they can change the external painting without any reference to the council or going through the development process. That is an anomaly. At present developmental controls of the external appearance of the building only come into play when there is a change in land use. Accordingly, you can have identical businesses alongside each other within a street subject to different development controls now.

Consultation has taken place with the local government—the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters—and the town of Gawler, and they have voiced their support for the bill. Both councils have significant commercial areas within historic conservation zones. The bill was amended in the lower house to address concerns raised by the Hon. David Ridgway in his discussions with Mr Piccolo, the member for Light, from the other place.

The Planning Institute of Australia (SA Branch) has indicated that the bill is worthy of support. They state in their March 2009 newsletter:

There are numerous examples of businesses applying their 'corporate' colours to the whole or significant parts of buildings to, in effect, enhance their advertising presence and visual exposure. The proposed extra control has a useful role to play by giving Councils an opportunity for assessing that impact first.

So, it does not automatically mean that those applications to paint a building in whatever colour they want will be refused, but it inserts a step for councils to have a say in that process.

The bill gives the minister an enabling or head power to introduce the regulations. The bill does not impose the controls on to council, as I said before. By using regulations, the council would seek to have the controls introduced to their areas by applying to the minister. This process also provides a check and balance by ensuring that councils do not get overzealous.

The bill does not alter the categorisations of development applications. They will continue as they are according to existing regulations or development plan requirements. The bill also does not mean that the external painting of non-residential buildings cannot occur but, as the Planning Institute has pointed out, it enables the development authority to assess the impact before it occurs. It is important to reiterate that the bill is designed, with the amendments, to capture commercial buildings, not residential buildings. I seek the support of the council for the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

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