HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Planning Regulations

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

That regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning assessment of significant developments, made on 14 August 2014 and laid on the table of this council on 16 September 2014, be disallowed.

(Continued from 24 September 2014.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:07): I sought leave to conclude my remarks because I want to put onto the Hansard the reactions I received from my consultation on this motion. Just to remind members, this is a motion to disallow regulations that provide for the state Coordinator-General to be able to call in certain developments regarded as developments of state significance that are worth more than $3 million. By calling them in, that would make them a decision that would be made by the Development Assessment Commission rather than by the local council.

Having moved the motion I then proceeded to consult every local council in South Australia, and I received a considerable amount of feedback. Of course, because of the local council elections and caretaker mode, most elected members and candidates had other things on their mind but, still, a considerable number responded to my request for comments. In fact, some hundreds of people responded, dozens of local councillors, and 18 of those local councillors went to the trouble of providing me with additional comments.

I say 'additional comments' because the first request I made of people was that they sign an online petition, and the advantage of online petitions over the ones that we table here in parliament is that you can be a little bit more flexible with the wording. In fact, you can direct your petition in slightly different ways to different members of parliament, as the occasion requires. So I thought I might just put on the record the petition I asked people to sign, and which hundreds did sign. The first part of the petition was directed squarely at Premier Jay Weatherill and planning minister John Rau. The petition, or the request of those signing it, read:

Can you please stop making fundamental changes to our planning laws without consultation with Local Councils and local communities? You've already established a review of the planning system, so why not wait a few more months until it reports? All South Australians have a stake in the future of our cities, towns, suburbs and regions, not just your mates in the property development industry. Not happy, Jay!

I have a feeling that had I attempted to table a petition in parliament with the words, 'Not happy, Jay' rather than, 'Your petitioners humbly praying' it might not have been able to be tabled, but that is the beauty of the online petition. The part of the petition that related to the Liberal Party was addressed to opposition leader Steven Marshall and shadow planning minister Steven Griffiths and it reads:

Before the election, you told local councils that you supported their continued involvement in the planning system. You also promised to reinstate the planning responsibilities that had been taken away by Labor. So why on Earth did you vote the opposite way in Parliament recently? Do you need a reminder? Here's what you said.

And the online petition then links to Steven Marshall's media release in which he says that he will reinstate planning powers to local councils. The words of the petition conclude:

Please stick to your word next time. Not happy, Steven!

I will not read them all out, but there is a reference to the Family First party and to the Xenophon team, basically urging them to support local communities having a say in planning and even a special mention to the Hon. Kelly Vincent to thank her for supporting the last motion to disallow the planning regulations.

In terms of the responses I received from local councils and councillors (I will start with those) the first thing I will say is that no-one contacted me and said, 'Mark, you're wrong.' No-one said, 'These are fine regulations that should stay in place.' Every single person who responded to me did so by saying they supported the disallowance motion and they were unhappy with what the government was doing. I will refer to some of these.

I will start with not an elected member but a council officer, Chris Newby, who is the manager of development services and communications at the City of Prospect. He made the point that the council, whilst it might not have primary decision-making responsibility, is still going to have to assess the developments in a detailed manner because they have to make sure the developments will fit within their local community and the local services they provide.

He makes the point that council would not receive any fees associated with a referral to the Development Assessment Commission, and thus was likely to incur additional budget implications. We received a response from Julie Jordan, who was a candidate in the city council, and Ian Grosser, a councillor of the District Council of Mount Barker, who I think was re-elected (a good councillor there). He says:

Councils are more directly answerable to local communities and understand local context and opinions. It is undemocratic to sideline them from planning decisions. Like the Urban Renewal Bill, these decisions should wait until the Expert Panel of Planning Review is finalised.

Scott McDonald, who is a former councillor from Kangaroo Island, basically said that he and others on the island were:

…seriously peeved that the SA government is taking decisions out of our hands. We want More Autonomy, not what some remote pollie thinks is good for us (or themselves).

Councillor Michael Joy from the City of Playford states:

In 10-15 years time I'm sure we will see a significant number of poor planning incidents that will be the sole responsibility of this State Government and a lesson will be learnt of what not to do.

Mayor Simon Brewer of Campbelltown City Council said:

The latest in a long line of power grabs on development by the State [government]. Not right.

Scotty Milne, a councillor from the Barossa Council said:

Planning Rules and Regulations appear to have been hijacked by the current Minister, creating unholy Raus—

pun intended—

within the general community. This portfolio has been in a constant flux of change, amendment, confusion and dictatorial edicts for far too long. Local Government, Communities and Developers, require stability, communication, consultation and fairness regarding planning issues.

Bob Marshall, councillor from Victor Harbor, responded, as did a councillor of the City of Unley, Rufus Salaman, and I will just read a sentence or two of his:

Both as a private citizen and an Unley Ward councillor, I am alarmed and disappointed that the Liberals have back flipped on their preelection promises to return planning consent authority back to the Councils. In Unley we are likely to be totally disenfranchised regarding planning decisions, with the pending removal of local [development assessment panels] and their replacement with government accredited 'experts'. It is all very well to say there is local input into the Development Plan, (but North Terrace has the final say on what is gazetted).

Councillor Gianni Busato from the Town of Walkerville says:

As a councillor and DAP member I am tired of hearing about planning delays that are often the fault of the applicant. The State has to discuss this matter with Councils and not just the developers. The majority independent member DAPs are a good compromise between community and developer voices. At least the DAP's operate in public. The DAC discusses matters behind closed doors and is not accountable to the public.

Graham Bills, councillor with the City of Burnside, says:

Another frustrating invasion by [the] government to terminate local representation over matters which affect local areas.

Councillor Jennie Boisvert from the City of Unley says:

This is appalling judgement on behalf of [the] state government. There is no evidence to suggest that this is necessary. State government has a role in deciding what the Development Plans recommend, after that the assessment should be Council's concern.

Councillor Sandra Brown from the City of Onkaparinga says:

This looks like big brother tactics—whilst there are issues with local development assessment panels it is not broken, [it] just needs qualifications for elected members on panels to reduce political views and limit rubber stamping. Development at all costs is not good development, it leaves the local councils and state govt. to mop up the blood spilt from a developer focussed entirely on profit and not interested in the environment…or building happy safe and sustainable communities.

I make the point that we have in this place passed a bill recently that will require councillors to have more education as part of their role, having been elected at the recent poll. Thanks, too, to councillor Jane Silbereisen from the City of Mitcham and councillor Sandy Wilkinson who I think was re-elected to the city of Adelaide. He says:

Planning is the reason why many if not most people get involved in local government because they care about the area they live [and] work in.

The CEO of the Town of Walkerville, Kiki Magro, sent me a copy of a resolution from the Walkerville council where the council recommended that the administration sign the online petition on behalf of the council. I thank them for that, and I thank councillor Gerry Chivell from Port Pirie and councillor Christel Lorraine Mex from Norwood Payneham St Peters. There were many other local government elected members and staff who signed the petition but did not leave extra comments. I thank them all for that input.

There is an even larger number of people from the community sector who signed, and I will not go through all of those, but I do need to touch on some. I will start with a group that, over the last, I think, probably three years now has been at the forefront of representing community voices in these planning debates, and that is the Community Alliance SA. Tom Matthews, on behalf of the alliance, said:

It appears the government is convinced that 'fast tracking' $3 million development projects will quickly bring vital economic benefits. This is a short-sighted view. In making these changes, the Planning Minister and the Government have again taken important decisions about local matters further away from our Councils and the input of local communities. This arrangement has the capacity to result in approval of developments far less appropriate and less suited to local areas.

The Government's action in bringing these changes denigrates the Local Government Association, the Councils and the community by suggesting that the locally appointed decision makers are incompetent and cause delays.

As I have said in the past, there is no evidence that that is where the main problem lies. The Community Alliance submission goes on:

The new Regulations came into force on August 14th this year. There was no consultation with local government or the community, which could have helped to identify any 'blockages' in the current development approval process, and identify potential solutions that retain input at a more local level. Furthermore, this sweeping change to the planning system has been introduced while the State planning review was still under way. The Government has decided not to wait for the final recommendations of its Expert Panel on Planning Reform due in December this year. The Government decided to go it alone and ignore everybody.

These Regulations must be disallowed and a firm message must be delivered to the Government and the Planning Minister. This is not good planning and it runs roughshod over Councils, the Local Government Association and the people of SA. The Community Alliance asks you respectfully to vote for the Hon. Mark Parnell's disallowance motion.

Another Community Alliance member, Helen Wilmore, points out:

The Community Alliance SA last year flagged the need for a moratorium on significant changes to the planning system while the planning review process is underway. However, the Government continues to make these changes, without even consulting with those affected local councils and communities.

I would also like to thank Carol Faulkner and Nancy Fahey, from the Cheltenham Park Residents Association; Elspeth Reid, from People for Trees; Bronwyn Mewett, from the Prospect anti high-rise group; and a large number of individuals: Dario Centrella, Stephanie Johnston (I will come back to her in a second) and David Scougall who, members might remember, was a passionate advocate for his community regarding the Manitoba apartments in the city in seeking to keep that community together. I also thank Ray Marnham, Alex Hodges, Peter Clements, Phillip Groves, Brian Thoman and Paul Laris who says:

Good urban development comes from socially inclusive planning—not open slather for short term development profits.

I thank Gunta Groves, David Rowlands, Deborah White, Ian Rohde, Stewart Mitchell, Lexie Walsh, Sam Ryan, Elizabeth Crisp, David Cree, Alan Chapple, Margaret Johnson, Lavinia Moore, Kevin Williams, John Zeniou, Ian Bourne and Andrew Dyson. I will read his comment, because I think it is important:

I am appalled by the government's ongoing attempts to strip Councils and residents of all powers in relation to planning and development, despite its ongoing review by its Expert Panel that it claims to be a genuine review. Yet again, the government is treating the community with contempt.

I am also very disappointed that the Opposition failed to abide by its promise before the March election that it would return planning powers to Councils. I had thought there might be some difference between the government and opposition but it appears that they are also 'in bed' with the development lobby.

I would like to thank James Bell and Trixi Pettman-South. Finally, I come back to an example of the use of these regulations that was provided by Stephanie Johnston who, as members would know, is an active member of the community in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. She pointed out that the Coordinator-General initiative is clearly tailored to the On The Run/Peregrine Corporation applications.

Apparently there are 22 applications, and they have now been removed—I know at least five of them have, and the understanding is the rest will be—from council assessment by the Coordinator-General. As she points out:

This is worse than Major Project Status as no Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

This is a matter I raised in question time some time ago, but since then it has become clear to me that these regulations are, fair and square, aimed at that one corporation and its one line of business, that is, the building of petrol stations and convenience stores.

I note that in the City of Onkaparinga there was an On The Run petrol station proposed for Aldinga, and 100 people made submissions to this category 3 development. It is fair to say it was probably about 50-50—those in favour to those against. What was important to me is one of the submissions against that going ahead was the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association. As it turned out, the council planning officer did a thorough assessment of that project and recommended refusal; the council's development panel refused it.

It then went to the Environment Court because, as we know, developers always have the right to appeal. The most recent document on the court file is a withdrawal notice where the appellant, On The Run Aldinga '…withdraws the above action and all future hearing dates have been vacated'. In other words, they got what they want. They do not need to argue the merits of their development in court with equal time given to the proponents and the opponents. They now get to go through a special state government stream, and that is the reason they have withdrawn their appeal in court.

The really dodgy nature of the use of these regulations is the fact that most of these On The Run petrol stations—I would suggest all of them, but maybe one or two are—are not worth $3 million. They are not valued at $3 million.

The government has basically said, 'Well, there's five petrol stations proposed in five suburbs or towns in five different council areas. Why don't we just add them all up, pretend it's a single development, pretend it's worth $3 million, and then we can get these developments called in; taken off the councils and given to the Development Assessment Commission.' That is one of the dodgiest legal ploys I have ever seen and it is only a matter of time before someone takes that to court—and they will win. You heard it here first: they will win if they take that to court because I think there is no defence to the way the government is handling it.

That is what I wanted to do in concluding my remarks: put those views on the record. I thank all of the councils, councillors, CEOs and individual citizens who took the trouble to write. I will let members know again (I have done this by email already) that this will be coming to a vote on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. M. Gazzola.

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