HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-09-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Inner Metropolitan Area Development

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning Inner Metropolitan Area Development—Relevant Authority—Development Assessment Commission, made on 28 November 2013 and laid on the table of this council on 6 May 2014, be disallowed.

(Continued from 6 August 2014.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:40): I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition to the motion by the Hon. M.C. Parnell. Last year, minister Rau tabled these particular variation regulation, and the regulation provided that:

The Development Assessment Commission (DAC) is now responsible for assessing development applications that involve the construction of a building that exceeds four storeys in height within inner-rim council areas; specifically, in an area defined in council development plans as the Urban Zone Corridor and the District Centre(Norwood) Zone, taking the development assessment role from council development assessment panels.

The DAC has established a committee, known as the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee, to act as a delegate of the Development Assessment Commission.

Membership of the new subcommittee is determined by the minister. It comprises all the members of the DAC and a representative (a specialist external DAP member) from each of the six affected councils: Michael Llewellyn-Smith from Adelaide, Brenton Burman from Unley, Ross Bateup from Burnside, Jenny Newman from Norwood Payneham and St Peters, David Cooke from Prospect, and Wayne Stokes from West Torrens.

Removal of the City of Adelaide's statutory referral role for advice on projects over $10 million. CDAP lost the power to approve or reject just projects five years ago; DPTI insists that the DCC still have an informal role.

And finally, an expanded role for the Government Architect, supported by the Capital  City Designer Review Panel, and the expansion of the pre-lodgement case management service to support the changes.

The Hon. Mark Parnell has moved to disallow these regulations, and I indicated earlier in my contribution that the opposition will not be supporting him. I am waiting for him to groan with disgust in his chair, but maybe he missed that.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The main reason we will not be supporting these regulations—and I will certainly touch on it a little further in my contribution—is that we are on the cusp of some more planing reform with the expert panel, which these regulations were designed to complement. So, it does not make sense from the opposition's point of view to disallow these before we have actually had a look at all of the reforms.

In a letter to the Adelaide City Council (and in a similar letter sent to the inner-rim councils), minister Rau outlined the state government's objectives: primarily, to provide progressive certainty and a streamlined assessment process, as well as removing unnecessary duplication and costly delays within the planning system. The Local Government Association of South Australia and the six inner-rim councils were not happy with the state government's lack of consultation, and the announce and defend attitude to legislation.

We appreciate the councils have a predisposition to resisting these types of changes, and we appreciate the consultation process followed has been lacking. Throughout my time as the shadow planning minister, this lack of transparency and consultation was always one of my chief concerns. However, the LGA is not opposed to the planning reforms, and is willing to compromise with the government on planning initiatives to promote development in the inner-rim zone.

A strategy to promote in-fill development within the inner metropolitan area is vital to guarantee vibrancy in the city and impede urban sprawl. I think all of us in this chamber have been concerned with the continual urban sprawl and, in particular, some of the actions of the government in relation to property and land at Seaford, which had been rezoned for 20 years or more, but it was this government that actually sold it to allow the gateway to the Fleurieu to be subdivided. We have seen issues up in Mount Barker and, of course, there have been some issues out north.

There have always been people opposed to such developments with an infill strategy, but the government does have a responsibility to implement some reform and some sustainable planning agendas. Of course, the development assessment process needs to be transparent so that the South Australian public has confidence in the system and to ensure that corruption does not transpire between government and developers.

During parliamentary estimates in July this year, my colleague Steven Griffiths, the member for Goyder, asked minister Rau why changes were implemented prior to the final report of the expert panel on planning reform being released in December. His explanation was that he wanted to 'manage the system in an ongoing way and you cannot put in into deep-freeze while Brian [Hayes] and his team work on it for 18 months'. He further stated that 'the development community has been very pleased with the notion of being able to deal with DAC and very pleased with the notion of being able to get design review and that sort of case management model operating'.

A streamlined development application process plays a significant role in driving competitiveness, economic development and the delivery of sustainable communities. We need to create uniformity within the system by having one body (DAC) making all of the decisions at a higher level while still enabling council to make planning decisions at a lower level.

My colleague Steven Griffiths, the member for Goyder, on behalf of the Liberal Party sought advice on some key aspects of the regulations. He said that DPTI had advised that council staff are welcome to participate in pre-lodgement discussions with applicants and that DAC staff were to highlight any initial concerns and to report on local considerations so that DAC can factor these issues into the assessment of development applications.

In instances where an applicant chooses to 'cold lodge' a development application without having participated in the pre-lodgement process, the council is given the opportunity to highlight any initial concerns and to report on local considerations in writing. A council representative (the selected specialist external DAP member) is also involved in the assessment process as a member of the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee. I think that it was John Hanlon who confirmed in writing that 'sitting fees will be paid per meeting' for participation in that subcommittee. In order to clarify council's non-statutory informal role in the pre-lodgement and post-lodgement assessment of development applications, a heads of agreement was developed by DPTI and has been endorsed by council CEOs.

In relation to the question of where are the development application fees paid, I indicate that, as the DAC is now the relevant authority for assessment of buildings over four storeys, all development application fees are paid to DAC. Given that council is not a statutory referral agency, it receives no fees for its informal participation in the assessment process. A number of councils have raised concerns that the participation of council staff in the pre-lodgement process is considerable; that is, each development application involves the attendance of a council representative at several pre-lodgement panel meetings and design review panel meetings. There will be some financial impact on councils, but it is uncertain how significant they may be.

A question was raised by Steven Griffiths, the member for Goyder: how were the urban corridor zone and the district centre (Norwood) zone determined? In December 2010, the six councils were presented with the inner city dwelling yield analysis project report and were asked to work collaboratively with the Minister for Urban Development and Planning to prepare a development plan amendment to progress policy framework to support population and density yield targets, as outlined in the report, in line with the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

In relation to the inner metropolitan growth project, councils agreed to prepare draft DPAs incorporating the urban corridor zone and the district centre (Norwood) zone to allow for a new urban structure that includes more intensive forms of urban development along main road corridors, an important strategy in reducing urban sprawl. Examples of where the zone may apply include parts of Greenhill Road, Anzac Highway, Port Road, Prospect Road, Unley Road, Kent Town, Hackney, Norwood and specific sites along Norwood Parade.

In October, following the endorsement of each council's inner metropolitan growth DAP by the Minister for Planning, the zoning came into effect. South Australia's design review programs are headed by the government architect. There are currently two programs: the Office for Design and Architecture SA (ODASA) design review program and the Capital City Design Review Panel. The Capital City Design Review Panel, launched on 22 November, is made up of 26 experts in urban design and architecture. The establishment of the Capital City Design Review Panel forms the partnership between the government architect and the planning department to deliver the pre-lodgement process.

The pre-lodgement service is a free voluntary service offered to proponents of development projects in the Adelaide City Council area that have a value of over $10 million, and an inner metro urban corridor zone that involves buildings exceeding four storeys. The role of the panel is to assist the government architect in providing immediate advice to the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee on the design merit of individual projects. It also offers independent, impartial expert design advice, from conceptual design through to lodgement.

Projects going through design review as part of the department's pre-lodgement process that are successful in reaching pre-lodgement agreements with all relevant statutory authorities will receive a decision from the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee within 20 days of lodgement. This result is supposedly a streamlined assessment process that identifies, investigates and resolves land use planning and design issues up front.

The councils have called for a better design process, and currently the applicant is able to lodge a development proposal (pre-lodgement development agreement) with the Capital City Design Review Panel. A copy of the report is then provided to CDAP. A number of councils have provided their support for the mandatory referral process of development applications to the government architect and the design review process.

I also note that it is interesting that the current interim report by the expert panel talked about some reforms that they are doing that are consistent with something that I discovered when I was the shadow minister and I spent some time in Western Australia. Following that, I presented a discussion paper to the community which was centred on many of the principles that are now going to be adopted by the South Australian reform in establishing a planning commission serviced by planning, economic and environmental experts, as well as having regional planning bodies. Of course, Western Australia is currently undergoing a raft of new reforms, and I think we should also look to those reforms.

It is interesting to note that there are 27 proposals in the South Australian reform document, and we look forward to a very robust and public debate on those when they are released later this year. This inner city rim initiative aims to eliminate the discrepancies that were previously occurring at a council level which deterred developers and investment in our state. Minister Rau has stated that one of the big things we have been hearing from business is that you go to different councils and, even though the zoning is exactly the same, you have two completely different interpretations of what that zoning means.

The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has previously informed the opposition of figures outlining how many development applications the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee has assessed in each council. The number was relatively low and there have been none within the West Torrens council since planning changes were implemented.

There is no doubt that the role of local government within the planning system will change if the recommendations for reform are embraced, particularly through key reforms being considered to establish a state planning commission (which includes the roles of the Development Policy Advisory Committee and the Development Assessment Commission and their subcommittees) and the creation of regional planning networks.

You can see there is a raft of changes that are going to come with the planning reforms. I think, as I said earlier, interestingly a number of those reforms have been picked up from what happens in Western Australia. I spoke to a couple of the bureaucrats from Western Australia some four or five years ago. One of them had worked in six jurisdictions for 23 or 24 ministers and they believed the Western Australian system was one of the best, so I am pleased that the South Australian government, although somewhat reluctantly, has come to the table to look at some of the reforms that we proposed in our discussion paper back in August 2011, which is three years ago.

With all of those reforms that are likely to come, I know that those proposals, things like planning commissions etc. will have legislative changes that will be required, so I think it is at that time that we should have a robust debate around the reforms and the changes rather than disallowing these regulations at present. Our member for the seat of Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, has some concerns at the moment, but even she agrees it is a better thing for us to look at the whole picture of reforms in a package rather than just disallow these regulations. With those, probably a bit longer than a few, words I indicate that we will not be supporting the honourable member's disallowance motion.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:54): I rise to outline on behalf of the government the reasons that the government is opposing this motion to disallow. The government regulatory changes have brought about an increased level of confidence and certainty around significant development projects. The changes promote a planning system that is consistent, efficient and repeatable. A key feature of the new system is that it provides for a centralised case management system, run by the government and at no cost to councils, that coordinates the planning, design and other technical considerations as proponents work up their proposal.

There is a whole host of reasons why the regulations should not be disallowed. In particular, there are four key reasons that I wish to raise. First, the affected councils are currently working with revised controls. The one issue that has consistently been raised when the community is asked what concerns them about development is that they do not believe enough effort is put into the design of new buildings. The new process that these regulations establish goes a long way to ensuring that design is at the forefront of not only the assessing body but, more importantly, the developers themselves.

Secondly, the referral to DAC is necessary to ensure the consistency and success of the new design process. A strong feature of the new system is a centralised pre-lodgement and design review service that provides progressive certainty to proponents and provides an integrated decision-making process. This new approach ensures that all significant development proposals undergo a comprehensive design review process.

Thirdly, the previous arrangement of referral to the city council was of limited value. The referral to Adelaide City Council was removed to address duplication and confusion around the planning assessment process. The process was creating a dual assessment process that caused unnecessary delay and undermined the imperative to achieve progressive certainty. Importantly, all councils are represented on the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee by a council development assessment panel member.

Fourthly, the disallowance would change a new and consistent investment environment. The development industry is now, for the first time, working with a development assessment system that for significant development proposals is consistent across six councils.

It should be noted there is broad industry support for the changes. The South Australian division of the Property Council of Australia in a press release on 13 February 2014 indicated their strong opposition to any return of these new planning powers to local councils. Their statement said that to do so:

…risks hindering independent [assessment] process, timely planning approvals and good design outcomes.

They went on to say that:

Unpicking the progress made in the past year doesn't make economic sense. It may even act as a disincentive for development at a critical juncture for our Inner Metro Rim.

Most critically, this new system has been able to achieve good design outcomes in a number of major projects. To throw out these regulations just when they are starting to see real benefits and increased confidence in the planning system is both short-sighted and ill-informed.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:59): I will begin by thanking the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contributions and I will say that of course there is no surprise in the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' contributions. These are government regulations, so of course they are going to defend them. But I have got to say that I am gobsmacked by the Liberal approach, which is at complete odds with what they said before the election.

I remind members that the press release issued by Steven Marshall back on 14 February 2014 was headed 'Liberals will return planning powers to councils'. That is what disallowing these regulations do: they return the planning powers to councils. I read some of the press release when I introduced the bill, but what I did not refer to were some additional comments that were made by the Liberal Party in an interview with InDaily back on 13 February, in an article by Liam Mannix, which says:

Planning powers for multi-storey development would be handed back to inner city councils under a state Liberal policy announced this morning.

You cannot get any clearer than that. The Liberals said before the election that they would do exactly what I have just attempted to do, and that is to hand those powers back. The article goes on:

A string of planning changes by the State Government late last year substantially reduced the role of local government in approving multi-storey developments with the aim of speeding up high-density development in the inner city.

Under regulations released in October—which came as a surprise to many…councils—the State Government became the approval authority for developments of more than four storeys in the city and inner rim.

Shadow planning minister Vickie Chapman this morning told InDaily she'd hand many of those powers back from state to local government.

The quote from Vickie Chapman:

'Local councils should remain in the planning assessment role,' she said. 'We have confidence they can do it. We don't think there's any necessity for there to be a transfer of that responsibility to a state agency.

'They—

being local councils—

would give the public a right to be consulted before decisions are made, right from the start—and not just have state imposition, which is what we're so angry about. It would reintroduce local knowledge to local decision making.'

There you have it, Mr President. The Liberals have absolutely backflipped on what they said they would do before the election. I know I am focusing on them—I am cross with the government because these are bad regulations, but it is inexcusable of the Liberals. The message to the local community is: you cannot trust the Liberal Party on planning. They say something before the election and they vote a different way afterwards.

I have to remind members that these regulations are opposed by every single local affected council. Every single local residents' group in the affected areas opposes these regulations, and many dozens of them wrote to you all as members of the Legislative Council urging you to support this disallowance motion, and you have ignored them. You have let them down and, what is worse, you have lied to them in relation to the statements made before the election.

If we think this is the end of it, it is not. We know that the state government started their crusade against local councils by first of all stripping Adelaide City Council of developments worth $10 million. Next, they decided to strip the inner rim councils of their ability to approve more than four-storey developments. But what we now have—and we will be debating this next Wednesday—is an attempt to remove all developments worth more than $3 million from local councils back to the Development Assessment Commission, because they are regulations that were tabled in this place yesterday.

People might think, 'Well, no, that won't happen.' I tell you it will happen. Developers who want to develop to a value of more than $3 million will effectively go to a public servant, say they do not trust the local council and the public servant will say, 'Right, we will send your project to the Development Assessment Commission.' The Hon. David Ridgway mentioned the fact that we have an expert panel on planning reform and that, therefore, that somehow justifies agreeing with all the ad hoc changes to the planning system that the government is introducing before Brian Hayes and his panel have even reported.

I have been going along in good faith to these meetings, meeting with the expert panel, talking to them about changes, and yet the government does not give two hoots about that process. It does not care that citizens in good faith are debating changes to the planning scheme, because it is just going to keep introducing changes outside this process until somebody stops them. Do not look to the Liberals to stop them, because they will not.

Submissions to the expert panel close on 26 September, and people would be thinking, 'What does it matter what we tell them? The government is just going to do what it wants anyway,' as it did with these regulations and the ones that we are going to be debating next Wednesday in parliament—another disallowance motion to make sure that local councils stay in the process.

I am very disappointed in the approach of the Liberal Party, and I can tell you that the community will be as well. I look forward to seeing Vickie Chapman attend a meeting of the Burnside Residents Association, one of the groups that wrote to members of parliament saying, 'Please support this disallowance. Please support local council involvement in planning.'

They are going to be very disappointed, but it is very clear to me that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party are far more scared of the development lobby than they are of communities and citizens and residents' associations. People have a right to feel very let down by this decision, but I can say on behalf of the Greens: we will not be giving up and we will insist in this place on proper planning processes and making sure that laws are changed only for the best reason and following full consultation, not the way this government is approaching it.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 3

Noes 17

Majority 14

AYES
Franks, T.A. Parnell, M.C. (teller) Vincent, K.L.
NOES
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

Motion thus negatived.

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