Urban Development Institute calls for overhaul of open space rules
The Urban Development Institute is calling for an overhaul of rules that require developers of major housing projects to set aside 12.5 per cent of their land for public open space.
SA Business
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Calls for Planning Minister to reverse open space funding
- How to get the most out of your Advertiser subscription
A requirement for developers of major housing projects to set aside 12.5 per cent of their land for public open space should be overhauled, according to the Urban Development Institute.
In a submission to an inquiry into urban green spaces, the industry group argues the longstanding legislative requirement is inflexible, inconsistent across council areas and unnecessary in inner metropolitan areas where public open spaces already exist.
It is calling for a review of the development laws, and the introduction of open space rules that take into account each development’s location and nearby environment.
“The 12.5 per cent open space provision applies to some infill development in already established areas,” the submission says.
“These infill developments are often located where open space already exists in close proximity to the development, and therefore the provision of open space in that infill development is unnecessary, or the 12.5 per cent is not a reasonable expectation.
“An example of this are infill developments adjacent to Adelaide parklands, or large suburban parks.”
Submissions to the SA Natural Resources Committee’s inquiry into urban green spaces closed on Friday.
UDIA SA chief executive Pat Gerace said the quality of open spaces delivered in new housing developments varied, with their design often influenced by council concerns about ongoing maintenance costs once the land is transferred under their control.
“We believe there should be a greater emphasis on quality as part of any future methodology rather than a simple 12.5 per cent blanket provision,” he said.
“An agreed default minimum standard should be considered to avoid a bland outcome.
“Alternatively, is it preferable to simply leave this to negotiation on a case-by-case, allowing developers to innovate and provide a variety of open spaces?”
Under the current rules councils are able to request financial contributions from developers in lieu of the provision of open space.
Mr Gerace claims that creates another set of inconsistencies.
“Councils should not be able to leverage the legislative requirement to supplement their general revenue, which ultimately impacts housing affordability,” he said.
“The obligation to pay money upfront, particularly on deposit of a plan of division, adds further financial burdens and costs to the developer before sales revenue has been received.”
Open space contributions from developers go towards a planning and development fund, accessible by the State Government and councils.
Last month former Planning Minister Stephan Knoll invoked regulations that will allow the planning department to withdraw from the fund to bankroll controversial planning reforms.
The decision surprised developers, who claim the regulations go against the sole intent of the fund to create open space in areas undergoing urban infill and regeneration.