HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Hutt Street Proposed Works

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:16): I move:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges that Hutt Street is a well-loved Adelaide precinct, valued for its village character, established trees, dining, and local services;

2. Notes that the City of Adelaide's proposed revitalisation—including wider footpaths, cycling infrastructure and greening—will result in a significant loss of car parks vital to trader viability;

3. Notes that Adelaide City Council has received $7.32 million in federal funding for these works, and further notes that this funding is not contingent on the inclusion of separated bike lanes;

4. Notes that, despite consultation on five design options, residents and businesses remain concerned about parking loss, business disruption and the erosion of the street's character;

5. Acknowledges a petition from residents and traders outlining these concerns;

6. Notes that Adelaide Economic Development Agency data shows 87 per cent of the precinct's $102.3 million in annual economic expenditure comes from suburban visitors who rely on accessible parking;

7. Notes that a final Adelaide City Council decision is expected in December 2025;

8. Calls on the City of Adelaide to genuinely consider local and trader concerns before making any final decision;

9. Calls on the City of Adelaide to retain 60-degree parking to maintain commercial viability and minimise parking loss; and

10. Calls on the City of Adelaide to ensure any future works are clearly communicated and staged to minimise disruption, avoiding impacts similar to those seen on Jetty Road in the City of Holdfast Bay.

The City of Adelaide council has put forward five options to revitalise Hutt Street. Many of those options involve removing a significant number of car parking spots. There are a number of very deeply concerned residents and traders in the district concerned about the proposals that risk making Hutt Street commercially unviable.

They have been clear to me: in their words Hutt Street does not need a total revamp. For decades it has been a very cherished part of Adelaide life, a place where you can enjoy a meal under the shade of established plane trees, grab a coffee, pick up your dry-cleaning or visit the pharmacy in a beautiful leafy setting. The street is tree lined with attractive built form and well curated tenancies that meet the needs of locals and visitors alike, and many feel that with some minor improvements, cars, pedestrians and cyclists can coexist harmoniously.

But Hutt Street is more than a road from A to B. It is about the traders—the lifeblood of the street. They bring vitality and make Hutt Street a destination, and without them it becomes, some would say, nothing more than a transport corridor.

The data is clear. The Adelaide Economic Development Agency reports that 87 per cent of the $102.3 million spent on Hutt Street comes from visitors outside of the City of Adelaide. These people drive in. Without convenient parking, they will go elsewhere for their coffee, for their dry-cleaning and for their pharmacy needs, and when they go elsewhere these businesses—many of them local institutions—do not survive. So removing significant car parking has been signalled as an issue that will sound the death knell for these traders.

There are serious concerns that have been raised in relation to what is going on on Hutt Street and concerns that have been raised in relation to the consultation process. Let me be clear at this point, before I continue. This is not a council bashing exercise and will not be a council bashing exercise, as I think has been demonstrated by the very measured approach of this motion. Many residents, though, have complained that they were unaware of the consultation or the proposals. Given that 87 per cent of trade comes from outside the city, the low number of respondents indicates that the engagement process did not meaningfully engage with the thousands of suburban customers from the suburbs identified in the AEDA visitor analysis.

Under the City of Adelaide Act council is charged with recognising, promoting and enhancing the special social, commercial, cultural and civic role that the City of Adelaide plays as the capital city and heart of South Australia and with ensuring access to the City of Adelaide for all South Australians.

Locals and traders have raised concerns that these obligations have not been met in the desirable way. Indeed, some have gone as far as saying it has not been met in a meaningful way. Of the five options, the council's community engagement preferred recommendation was option D, that is, reducing the car parking to parallel parking and reducing Hutt Street to one lane each way from two each way currently. In effect, that is a reduction in on-street parking from 132 to 72 spaces.

Regarding their surveys, of the 1,039 survey respondents, 56 per cent preferred option D. That is 581 who preferred option D and 458 people who were against option D. Many would argue that it is not good city governance to decide to commit an estimated $29.2 million on such a potentially biased and small sample and without a complete comprehension of the impact on existing businesses, given the closure of many businesses that is currently occurring along Jetty Road at Glenelg.

Hutt Street business owners are quite rightly fearful of not only the loss of car park spaces but the devastation to their livelihoods during the construction of any proposed works. The Jetty Road example is front and centre of their minds at the moment, because they see that as a clear example of how traders could lose their businesses during a prolonged closure of the street. They question, quite rightly, how this is supporting our fragile city small business traders. The community engagement that I referred to did not explain that, by reducing the current cars from 132 to 72, and most likely less as that is an estimate, this would have a very serious and fatal impact on businesses. That is one of the reasons why there has been criticism of that process.

The Hudson Howells desktop economic analysis suggesting an economic boost from option D has not been tested with the business owners in Hutt Street to ask fundamental questions as to their customers' attitude to car parking and access to their businesses and therefore cannot be relied upon. Star Discount Chemist Hutt Street says petitions on the counter of many Hutt Street businesses from different industries show—and indeed I have confirmed this—that there are between 1,800 and 2,000 signatures opposing the plan, as opposed to the council's 1,039 survey respondents.

Apparently many of the petitioners did not know that there was a consultation process that they could take part in. Worse, Star Discount says it was warned that any deviation from option D would forfeit the entire federal grant that has been allocated to this project. Adelaide City Council undertook a concept design master plan in March and April of 2022, and I am sure most of us remember that. A Hutt Street main streets revitalisation concept development revitalization was engaged in February and concluded in March of 2025.

Any master plan must include the local business owners. There is no point not including the people who are, as I said, the heartbeat of the areas that are impacted. It is only they who knew their customers and the impact that reducing cars would have on their businesses' survival. The traders are currently fearful, quite rightly, of councillors making a decision without actually understanding how those businesses function.

There is insufficient foot traffic for Hutt Street to survive relying on cyclists or local residents alone. Again, this is not to say that we do not want more cyclists and we do not want more foot traffic in the area, but the brutal economic reality is that, whatever is there now that contributes to that beautiful village-style feel and vibe that that area has, that relies on customers coming from outside and car parking for visitors. Without an independent economic assessment of how Hutt Street functions financially and the importance of the 87 per cent of customers who come from the suburbs, a master plan based on proposal D or E, combined 45° angle parking, does risk the commercial viability of the street.

State and federal members for Adelaide, Ms Hood (now Minister Hood) and Mr Steve Georganas, had penned a joint letter to Adelaide Lord Mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith—and I will seek to table that letter at the conclusion of this speech—saying that they have heard the feedback that many residents were unaware of the consultation. So it is not me saying it: here are the local and federal MPs for the area saying that they have heard these concerns raised by people in their areas and that they did not feel fully informed about the practical implications of option D.

They said several residents noted that options online only emphasise the number of retained parking spaces rather than the spaces being removed, and that this lack of clarity understandably caused confusion and subsequent frustration. This is something that this motion seeks to recognise. The two members for Adelaide wrote, and I quote, that they:

…strongly encourage the City of Adelaide to consider a compromise option—one that delivers improved safety and amenity for cyclists, while also maintaining essential access for customers and visitors. Specifically, we ask Council to consider adopting the principles of Option E, but with the retention of 60-degree parking. This approach would achieve the goal of a protected bikeway while preserving as much parking as possible for local businesses and residents. Feedback from traders and locals suggests they would like to see at least 100 car parks retained.

As mentioned by Star Discount Chemist, their letter addressed reports that residents and traders have heard from council and/or councillors that any departure from option D or the inclusion of a different bikeway configuration might jeopardise federal funding for the project. The local and federal members have sought clarity in relation to that directly from the office of the Hon. Catherine King MP, federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who has indeed confirmed that the grant agreements can be and are regularly negotiated between the commonwealth department and local government grant recipients.

Council must learn from what is happening on Jetty Road, Glenelg—indeed, what happened along King William Road—where planning and communication resulted in closures and where planning and communication is already resulting in closures along Jetty Road, and more businesses may not make it past Christmas, which could have been avoided. Communication and stage planning are key.

Nothing is broken. This motion calls on the City of Adelaide to revisit this master plan, to protect the traders who make Hutt Street what it is and to ensure that they can sustain viable businesses for the customers and visitors, many of whom drive into the city, and to learn from and be guided by the mistakes that have been made in other areas, and we have two such huge mistakes: King William Road and Jetty Road.

This is not, like I said, a council bashing exercise or an anti-cycling motion. Residents and traders are actually pleading with council to take into account their concerns before making a final decision in December. They are pleading with council to ensure future works are clearly communicated and, critically, they are calling on the option to be staged to minimise disruption and to avoid similar impacts to those that we have seen or are seeing now play out on Jetty Road. They are calling on council to genuinely consider locals' and traders' concerns before making any such final decision and they are pleading with council to consider retaining the 60º parking to maintain the commercial viability and minimise loss and maintain the existing village vibe that has made Hutt Street what it is.

I frequent Hutt Street and I can tell you I do not do so by bike or indeed by foot; I usually do so by car. For me, it is a destination point purely because of where I live. The reduction in car parking does mean that if I do not have somewhere to park, I am not likely to go there. So I understand what traders are concerned about. The same impact, the same can be said for Jetty Road. Right now, as much as those businesses are wanting us all to go there, we are sitting back thinking how convenient this is to us in terms of going down there if you are not from the area, if you are not someone who cycles or catches transport because of your own circumstances.

We are all familiar by now with the frustrations that have led very sensible people like Bruce Djite of the Property Council to urge the government to review the powers and functions of the council and strip back what he calls the excessive influence over the state's 'economic heartbeat'. Whether you like it or not, there is a lot of sympathy for that view, that council is elected by a small fraction of the city's population but has a very broad remit and disproportionate power compared to those who contribute to rates revenue.

Of course, anyone who has ever met the Lord Mayor knows that Bruce has met his match when it comes to the regular contests that he has with the Lord Mayor in the media. She, too, is a reasonable person who wants to see the city prosper. But the bottom line is this: the Lord Mayor, in this instance, is not in control of that decision-making: the council is. So this argument that continues to fester between two very experienced and high-profile people in the public, I am sure, will continue to fester until these sorts of issues are resolved appropriately.

It is a contest of ideas between two very highly respected community leaders, who each are representing their views and the views of those individuals who reach out to them and say, on the one hand, 'This is what we want because we live here,' and on the other hand, 'This is what we want because we have been here for a long time and are trying to maintain the commercial viability of the city and the wants and needs of the locals who live in that area.'

I think this is a perfect example of where there needs to be a middle ground between those two views. As I said, the final decision has not been made. It is due to be made in December. Those people who have contacted the local member for Adelaide here at a state level and the local member federally, and indeed who have contacted me, and the 2,000-odd signatories to the petition, are just calling on the local council to take into consideration those issues that have been identified in this motion and their concerns about the beautiful village vibe that exists in Hutt Street and the potential damage that is confronting them when a decision is made as to which option to adopt in this case.

I do not think it is an unreasonable ask for locals and traders. There are traders who have said, 'In the absence of a reasonable decision, we don't have any choice but to pack up and move out, because our business simply will not survive.' I think asking for a staged approach and consultation as a bare minimum is not an unreasonable ask. If there are people who are complaining that has not happened, then they are complaining for good reason. They are not whingeing and whining that they do not like the decision you have made, because there is no final decision. They are pleading with you to take into account their views as local traders and residents in the area before making a decision and ensure that that final decision has the benefit of understanding the intricacies that exist on Hutt Street.

With those words, I look forward to hearing from other honourable members on this motion. I seek to table that letter. I plead with the Adelaide City Council to take into account the matters that have been raised, the 2,000 signatures that have been signed, and the joint letter that has been provided by the local and federal MPs in relation to this issue.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:34): I am going to speak very briefly on this motion to indicate that I have some concerns with members of parliament seeking to ride roughshod over the Adelaide City Council. I should disclose I am an Adelaide City Council resident and, indeed, I do live quite close to Hutt Street, so I have a bit of knowledge about some of the issues. I do understand the concerns of local traders. Absolutely, I understand those concerns.

I think it is important that, when we are doing any infrastructure planning, we strike a balance between the needs of businesses and also the needs of pedestrians and the like. I think the suggestion that there has not been consultation or inadequate consultation is perhaps misguided. I seek leave to table a document myself, the 'Our Places: Hutt Street Revitalisation' presentation that was provided to the Adelaide City Council, as listed on its website.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In that document, slide 12 onwards references the process that the council undertook in relation to its consultation. It notes that back on 26 November 2024, council resolved that it approved for the purposes of public consultation:

1.1 Option A (Existing conditions—footpath option only); and

1.2 Option B (Renewal with 60-degree angle parking) and

1.3 Option C (Renewal with 45-degree angle parking) and

1.4 Option D (Current Concept (interpeak parallel) and

1.5 Option E (Combined 45-degree angle parking).

These were the options that were identified by the council for consultation. As a result, the council undertook to promote that via the Our Adelaide newsletter to its subscriber base, 11,000 recipients. It did a fact sheet that was dropped to 3,375 properties. It posted to 2,295 owners. It did social media. There were posters. There were business forums conducted.

I understand—and again, I am referencing the information in the document that I have tabled—there were 1,000 survey responses. There were three drop-in sessions that were attended by nearly 100 people. There were business forums: 129 people were invited, 36 attended. There were stakeholder workshops with eight attendees but with 40 invitations, and 46 online and hard copy submissions were received. The outcome of all of that consultation was that option B was accepted: protected and separated bike lanes, wider footpaths, greater opportunity for outdoor dining and activation, and renewing the street and creating more opportunities for business.

I just make the point that the experience in every place around the world when they have introduced separated bikeways is that businesses do have concerns about loss of parking and the impact that might have but, once the bikeways are built, actually there is an economic uplift for those communities. I just urge members of this chamber to be careful about trying to ride roughshod over the Adelaide City Council. I am conscious that we have a very important speech that I am looking forward to hearing, so with that, I will conclude my remarks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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