HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (PUBLIC CONSULTATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:08): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Development Act 1993. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is the third I am introducing today and again it comes from the hard work and the deliberations of the Community Alliance representing community groups from around South Australia that have an interest in planning law reform.

This particular bill does two distinct but very simple things. Unlike the earlier bills where the main subject matter was changes to planning schemes and rezoning exercises, this bill relates to development applications and how they are advertised and dealt with. The first reform in this bill is to enable either the regulations or a development plan itself to list a form of development as a category 3 development. What that means is that category 3 developments are the only form of development that is required to be notified to the world at large through a notice in a newspaper and where any person is entitled to make a representation or a submission.

At present, category 3 is defined as a remnant category. In other words, only forms of development that are not category 1 and 2 are regarded as category 3. Again, it is quite a technical area of law but, in a nutshell, the vast majority of development is category 1, a smaller number is category 2 and a tiny proportion is category 3.

Generally speaking, if a form of development is a complying form of development, (in other words, it is a type of development generally envisaged by the planning scheme), then it will be regarded as a category 1 and maybe a category 2 but it cannot be regarded as a category 3, no matter how controversial, how significant or how large. You could, in fact, have the largest industrial complex ever constructed in South Australia being regarded as a category 1 development provided it was constructed in an industrial zone, because at present the planning scheme basically regards the zone as paramount and, as long as a form of development is consistent with that zone, no-one need be notified.

That may well be an appropriate response for some minor types of development, and I will come to some exceptions, but in the vast majority of cases I think people do have a right to know what is going on in their neighbourhood, and for large and controversial developments it should be possible for either the regulations, or the government through a development plan or a planning scheme (I use those terms interchangeably), to actually list something as a category 3 development. It has not been possible up until now: this bill enables that to happen.

The second reform in this bill—and, again, one that has come out of conversations with community groups and one that, I recall, was given a fair bit of support at a public meeting at the Norwood Town Hall probably the best part of a year ago—is a very old-fashioned idea that, when somebody has applied for development approval, they should be required to place a notice on the land to that effect. That might sound complicated but you only need think of the regime under the Liquor Licensing Act.

You walk past a hotel and you will see a sign in the window—a number of honourable members are shaking their heads. They never walk past hotels, and I have just appreciated the irony of what I have said. But, let's say, hypothetically, that you do walk past a hotel: you often see a sign in the front window (an A3 sheet of paper affixed to the window) which basically is a notice to the world walking past that an application has been made for a liquor licence or for a variation of the licence.

The public policy rationale for that is quite clear. Let's say a hotel was seeking to extend its hours. Therefore, people have an interest. Neighbours, for example, have an interest. A regime whereby a notice is affixed to the window and people have a right to put in submissions is one that has been long accepted in that area.

When it comes to development applications more generally, many other jurisdictions have a system of requiring a notice to be affixed to the land. The purpose of that notice is exactly the same: it is to let people know that something is afoot, that some change is proposed, and whether or not people choose to investigate further is up to them but, at present, not only are most development applications not notified but it can be very difficult to even find that information, even if you are seeking to pull it towards you rather than have it pushed at you. So, a sign on the land, I think, is a very simple and straightforward method.

The requirement in the bill I have put forward does not set out the detail. It does not talk about the font size or the size of the paper, or anything like that. The only requirement is that the relevant authority, which in most cases will be the local council, must ensure that the person making the application has taken reasonable steps to display a notice of the proposed development at the site of the development in accordance with the regulations.

In some cases, it might be an A4 piece of paper sticky taped into the window. In other cases, it might be a wooden stake hammered into the ground with a laminated notice attached to it. It might be a star picket. It might be on the front gate or front fence. Those details can be left to regulation, but I think the principle is what is important. People have a right to know what is going on in their neighbourhood and they should have a right to make representations or a submission if a form of development is likely to affect them or they have an interest in it, and the best way to do that is to make sure that we do not keep these things secret and we let people know.

It is usually at this point that someone interjects with the story from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where of course the plans for the hyperspace bypass, which involve the destruction of planet earth, were found in a basement, rather inaccessible to most people. The reason that that is funny in TheHitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is that it has such a ring of truth to it. People know that information that should be readily available is very often hidden away in places like the Government Gazette, which I am still yet to read and I am yet to meet an ordinary South Australian who has ever read the Government Gazette. With those brief words, I commend this bill to the house, along with the two that have preceded it, and I look forward to debate in coming weeks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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