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 18 June 2014.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:45): This is the motion to disallow regulations under the Development Act and when I spoke to this motion on 18 June I sought leave to conclude my remarks so I could gather feedback from the affected local councils and community groups. I have received over 20 submissions and I want to put these on the record and offer my thanks to those who responded. I would also like to thank the officers from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure who gave me a briefing on the operation of the inner metro prelodgement process and the work of the Government Architect and the Design Review Panel process.

When writing to councils I sought feedback on five particular questions and then offered the opportunity for them to add anything else. The questions I asked them were:

1. Whether the elected member or the council supported the disallowance motion.

2. What they thought of the consultation process leading up to these regulations.

3. Any particular difficulties these regulations posed for their council area.

4. Any statistics or other information to show councils past record on development approvals in general and larger residential buildings in particular.

5. Any alternative arrangements that would be preferable to these regulations.

I will refer to some of the answers to these questions as I go through the various submissions but, to cut right to the chase, the written responses I received from councils and elected members were unanimously in support of this parliament disallowing these regulations. To make it perfectly clear that this was not a loaded survey or a selective sample, I wrote to every single elected member, every resident group, and the CEOs or planning department heads of each of the six affected local councils. The most recent response I received was from Wendy Campana, CEO of the Local Government Association, who wrote that the six councils unanimously committed their strong support for this disallowance motion.

What did each of these councils have to say? I will start with the City of Adelaide. Back in December last year soon after these regulations had been gazetted, Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood wrote to me, and I expect to most other MPs, about these regulations. In particular the council was concerned about the fact that the council, having already lost its powers to assess development applications worth more than $10 million, was now not even required to be consulted about these types of developments, plus any development more than four storeys in height. So, not only is the council's Development Assessment Panel no longer the decision-maker for these larger developments, they do not even have to be consulted.

Adelaide City Council was particularly concerned that these changes were foisted on them without consultation and outside the heads of agreement between the minister and the council and also against the spirit and the objects of the City of Adelaide Act 1998. The record shows that minister John Rau wrote to the council on 22 November last year and gazetted the regulations six days later, so he clearly had no intention of listening to anything that the council might have to say about the matter.

Since requesting formal feedback from the council this year, I also received a response from Mr David Chick, general manager, City Planning and Design. He reaffirmed the council's position in support of the disallowance motion, their disgust at not being consulted, and he drew attention to the complete lack of evidence justifying the minister's decision. In fact, when the government took away the council's powers to assess developments over $10 million, the processing time actually went up; so much for improved efficiency.

I would also like to thank councillor Houssam Abiad from Adelaide City Council, who supports the motion and reminded me that the government has prior form in relation to appalling consultation, and he reminded us of the Capital City DPA. I also thank councillor David Plumridge, who participated in the council's working group which was established to look into this and who adds his support to council's formal position.

As to the Corporation of the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters, I received correspondence from mayor Robert Bria, who supported the disallowance motion. He also provided me with a copy of the report prepared by council's planning staff which, like the Adelaide City Council analysis, queries any advantage to transferring responsibility for these development applications from council to the Development Assessment Commission. To quote the council report:

There appears to be no sound rationale as to why the Development Assessment Commission is better placed than the Council to determine Development Applications involving the construction of buildings greater than four (4) storeys in height. Processing timeframes do not appear likely to be any shorter and the persons involved in the decision-making process have similar levels of relevant experience and qualifications.

On the other hand, there is good reason why Councils are more appropriately placed to assess those Development Applications in its area. Specifically, Council has a greater knowledge and understanding of local planning matters. A detailed understanding of local planning policy, pressures, trends and conditions is imperative to a thorough planning assessment.

In relation to the question about what alternative arrangements the council thinks would be preferable, the council report reminds us:

Prior to the recent State Government Election, the Liberal Party advised that, if elected, they would seek to reinstate the Councils' powers to decide on approvals for buildings above four storeys, but buildings above eight (8) storeys would still be dealt with by the Development Assessment Commission.

It is unclear what the rationale was in relation to suggesting an increase to eight (8) storeys, however such a change would leave some development in Kent Town, where the DPA allows for development up to ten (10) storeys in height, being assessed by the DAC.

Given that there appears to be no sound rationale as to why the DAC is more appropriately placed than the Council to assess complex and large scale developments, there are no alternative arrangements where the DAC remains as the relevant authority.

That said, there would be some benefit in the Government Architect continuing to be a statutory referral agency for developments exceeding four (4) storeys in the relevant areas, with the Council being the relevant Planning authority. Advice from the Government Architect, if treated appropriately in the assessment process, can provide valuable guidance towards achieving quality development outcomes in line with the Development Plan.

I also note that I received a submission from councillor John Minney and also a submission from councillor John Frogley. Councillor Frogley said:

I totally support your motion. The majority independent Development Assessment Panels are in the best position to seamlessly assess development proposals…The regulations should be removed and planning decisions on individual proposals restored to the Council panels which are in the best position to efficiently determine conformity with Development Plans. The apparent belief that an additional bureaucratic process will result in better outcomes for developers and the community is misguided. Do not stuff up a good planning system that already has sufficient checks and balances to ensure that good planning outcomes for communities can be achieved with more than adequate flexibility and timelines to meet the needs of developers.

The City of Prospect very helpfully convened a workshop at which a large number of elected members and staff were in attendance, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk with them directly about this disallowance motion. I remember thinking at the time that those of us in state parliament should probably spend more time with our colleagues in local government because so many of the decisions we make will impact on their communities.

Mr Chris Newby, the acting director of planning and economic development at Prospect council, also provided a number of insights, in particular, the fact that referral of these developments to the Government Architect is included in the regulations that I am seeking to disallow. I agree with him that that is a provision worth retaining, but it is a known problem with disallowance motions that we are obliged to throw out the good with the bad.

It is also a known problem that the government can reintroduce exactly the same regulations the day after they have been disallowed. That is why I have been more than open with the government, and I invite them to reintroduce the referral to the Government Architect that triggers the design review panel process. I also believe that that process should be made available to local councils as well as the Development Assessment Commission, with the cost incorporated into developer application fees.

The Corporation of the City of Unley responded through their general manager of economic development and planning, Mr David Litchfield. Mr Litchfield made the point that:

The 30 Year Plan and subsequent changes to the Council Development Plan will mean significant future change to the fabric of the City. If the regulations remain in place, the local community is denied input into the decision making processes that will deliver this change.

When he was responding to the question about any particular difficulties that these regulations pose for his council, he made the point that:

The major difficulty is the lack of formal processes for Council to have input into the decision making about developments in regard to matters such as local traffic impacts, waste management, views of local residents and building compliance issues. These are all matters where responsibility falls on Council but Council is excluded from having a role in determining the outcome. For example, Council will be legally responsible for residential waste management but has no formal say in the collection arrangements proposed by the developer. If the Inner Metropolitan DAC allows a new apartment development to propose street pickup of 120 MGB's each week, Council must pick them up, regardless of the impracticality of that outcome.

Council officers will still need to undertake significant work in relation to applications, including participation in Design Review Panel meetings and the Pre-Lodgement Process meetings. Council building staff will still have to assume responsibility for building compliance issues. Yet all of the Planning Fees will be retained by the State Government and Council will receive insignificant building fees (in the order of a couple of hundred dollars only). Consequently Council will be significantly financially disadvantaged by the regulations.

Councillor Michael Hewitson, councillor for Unley ward, also responded. I thank him and note that he is the presiding officer of Unley's Development Strategy and Policy Committee. He makes the point that the Unley council has worked closely with the state government. He writes:

As a Councillor I do not understand why the State should remove the power from ALL councils as having done so removes the political goodwill and trust of the citizens of Unley. How can they trust their Council working with the government for a good environmental and heritage solution.

Also from Unley, councillor Don Palmer of the Goodwood South ward has made a submission. In relation to the City of West Torrens, deputy CEO Declan Moore supported the motion on behalf of his council. He provided me with a copy of their initial response to the minister last year, which expresses concerns about the regulations and disappointment that they were not consulted. West Torrens also expressed solidarity with the other inner rim councils who are opposed to these moves.

The City of Burnside mayor, David Parkin, wrote to advise that the council resolved at its meeting on 22 July to support this disallowance motion. The mayor's letter to me of 4 August states:

It is the Council's view, that with the same tools afforded to the Development Assessment Commission such as access to the Government Architect, Council staff and Development Assessment Panel Members are in an equal position to make carefully considered and sound planning assessments of the buildings in question. In fact, to not create this opportunity for Council staff and DAP Members would be to stifle professional development opportunities and reduce to some extent the attractiveness of the industry.

Council also resolved that a copy of this letter be forwarded to Stephen Griffiths MP, Member for Goyder, to inform him of the Council's position on this matter in response to his letter dated 30 June 2014.

That particular letter from Mr Griffiths includes the following sentence:

In a meeting with planning department staff last week, the indication given to me was that within local government the position had changed somewhat and staff and elected members are now 'comfortable' with the current situation.

I know that a number of councils, whilst they respected that Mr Griffiths was putting that as a proposition to them, all rejected it and said that they cannot understand why the state government department would think that they were now comfortable with these regulations, because they are not.

Another submission from the City of Burnside came from councillor Helga Lemon, who is a councillor with the Eastwood and Glenunga ward. She says:

My own view as ward councillor for Eastwood and Glenunga is that removing developments over 4 storeys from local Development Assessment Panels alienates the community from the evolution of their immediate neighbourhoods. People want to have a say about how their immediate neighbourhoods are developed and while this government talks a lot about community engagement, indeed they are now spruiking the merits of 'co-design', we don't see very much evidence of this in our blue ribbon liberal area.

I would also like to thank councillor Jane Davey and councillor Leni Palk from the City of Burnside for their responses.

The Local Government Association, as I mentioned before, received a letter from Wendy Campana, and I want to put on the record in some more detail some of the things that the LGA said, representing, as it does, all local councils. She said:

I am writing to confirm local government's continued support for the motion to disallow the Development (Inner Metropolitan Area) Variation Regulations moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell on 18 June 2014. On 21 July, the LGA convened a meeting of the mayors and CEOs of the six inner-metropolitan area councils impacted by these regulations. Mr Parnell was also in attendance. At this meeting, the six councils unanimously committed their strong support for the disallowance motion.

Local government is supportive of planning reform that is evidenced based; outcomes focused and delivered as a complete package of reform. The disallowance of these regulations will allow the decision making process for significant developments to be revisited in a positive and productive manner. The LGA is confident that through more collaborative discussions, there can be genuine improvement to both the efficiency of decision making and the quality of development outcomes.

I also received responses from a number of local residents groups, and I do want to thank them and put some of their thoughts on the record as well.

Elizabeth Crisp, the president of the Prospect Residents Association, basically confirmed that her committee supported the motion, and reaffirmed that there was no public consultation that they were aware of. They believe that the approvals should remain with local councils, who have a better knowledge of the area. She also comments that the number of residents who must be notified about high rise developments must be increased, as these developments will impact on a wider range of residents due to issues to do with traffic, smell, noise, overshadowing, overlooking, rubbish management, sustainability, etc. Dr Susan Sheridan, who is the secretary of the Preserve Kent Town group, says the following:

The Preserve Kent Town Association (PKTA), which was formed in 1975, has for many years sought to preserve and enhance the amenity of the Kent Town locality, and to encourage the retention and maintenance of buildings of historic value. To this end we have often engaged in negotiations—sometimes heated disagreements—with the local council, a process which we believe to be essential to the democratic system of government of which we are proud.

We agree with you that the Development (Inner Metropolitan Area Development) Variation Regulations 2013 should be disallowed. In reducing local councils' input to the new 'Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee' to the nomination of a single (non-elected) member, these regulations cut out any significant input from local council and local bodies such as the PKTA.

I note that Andrew Dyson, the secretary of the Kensington Residents Association, also supports the submissions of both the Prospect and the Kent Town groups. In relation to St Peters, we have Evonne Moore, who is the spokesperson for the St Peters Residents Association. She says:

On behalf of both the St Peters Residents Association and Save Our Suburbs—Adelaide, we strongly support your motion. The centralization of development assessment which the state government is trying to foist on to local communities in the inner suburbs is all about shutting them out of any say in the development assessment process.

I also note that Julie Jordan, the chairperson of the South West City Residents Association—and I note from a recent media release that she is also running for the Adelaide City Council this year—supports the disallowance motion. Ros Islip, the president of FOCUS, the Friends of the City of Unley Society, supports the motion, as does Lionel Edwards, president of the Residents of Inner North-West Adelaide.

Last but by no means least of the community groups is the Community Alliance SA, which is an umbrella group that represents residents associations and other community-based groups across South Australia. Tom Matthews, the president of that association, said the following:

Dear Mark,

The Community Alliance SA supports the motion that you proposed on 18 June 2014. Community Alliance members believe that local council Development Assessment Panel (DAP) members have the necessary expertise and local knowledge and are generally well qualified to make development assessment decisions. Local decisions made by local people work better having the support of the community.

Further DAPs have elected members of council who are better able than DAC members to make a judgment on the full impact/s of a development proposal in their local council area. Elected Members and other DAP members appointed by local councils have an intimate knowledge of their communities and can assess a proposal knowing how it will affect the area. For example they know the local conditions, ambience, traffic flows, road conditions, the people, and the surrounding buildings and local businesses that might be adversely affected. Their knowledge can enable a balanced assessment of the development proposal…Community Alliance argues that, until a new and fairer planning system is in place, the decision making ability for all development assessments should remain with local council DAPs. This would restore community faith that decisions for large developments will adequately address community needs and not just be for the benefit of the proponent.

In summary, many of the submissions pointed out that these regulations are a significant change to the planning system and also that they fall within the matters being considered by Mr Brian Hayes QC and the expert panel on planning law reform. The export panel's interim report was released today and their final report is due before Christmas.

Like the curate's egg, parts of it are excellent but other parts are terrible. Local councils and local community groups will now be poring over the 172 pages of Mr Hayes's report, and they will be doing so in good faith, and they will tell the Hayes committee what they like, what they do not like, and also where the panel has got the questions wrong as well as the answers.

It has been very hard for many people to engage in the planning law review process in good faith because that good faith has not been replicated by the state government. These regulations are symptomatic of a bullying approach that pays lip service to consultation and the interests of local communities. As a result, this parliament needs to send a message to the government that we support reform but we want it done respectfully, cooperatively and, most importantly, based on evidence.

I commend the motion to the house and advise that I will be bringing this to a vote on the next Wednesday of sitting after the winter break, being around the middle of September, but I will send a note to all MPs.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.