SA planning reform: The seven key changes
A ONCE-in-a-generation overhaul of SA’s planning system will be introduced to State Parliament when it resumes today. Here are the seven key changes.
A ONCE-in-a-generation overhaul of South Australia’s planning system will be introduced to State Parliament when it resumes today.
The proposal seeks to make the complex and confusing system easier to use and to create more certainty for businesses and homeowners alike.
But as with every major change, there will be controversy. Here are seven of the key changes Deputy Premier John Rau is proposing.
Infrastructure delivery scheme
The minister, developer or other interested party — including councils — can request that a future development come under the infrastructure delivery scheme. In essence, it means each homeowner in the area would be taxed to recoup the cost of new infrastructure requirements. Currently, developers are asked to prepare an infrastructure agreement prior to seeking approvals which includes what will be delivered and who will pay for it. Any costs borne by the developer are usually passed on to the first buyers in the purchase price. But often, wider infrastructure implications are not taken into account, such as wider main roads in surrounding areas, and any works required end up being paid for by the taxpayer. In some instances, where there are multiple landowners, it can be difficult to secure agreement on who pays for what and this delays approval. Under the scheme, a comprehensive infrastructure plan, including timelines and cost, would be developed in consultation with the State Planning Commission and the community. A cost would be locked in, which would then be spread among the new houses in the area over a set time period — say 10 years — and would be charged similarly to the Natural Resources Management levy, which appears on council rate notices.
Pros: Currently, basic infrastructure is paid for upfront and can add thousands to the initial purchase price. State taxpayers can often be left to bear the long-term cost of infrastructure to service new developments. The levy will mean that only the people who benefit from the infrastructure have to pay for it and this may reduce upfront costs.
Cons: It will be an additional cost to the household bills for some residents.
Environment and food protection area
This is the Government’s euphemism for legislating an urban growth boundary. The Government says it’s doing it to protect farmland on the outskirts of the metropolitan area, as it has done for the wine region at McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley. It’s also about stopping urban sprawl. Under existing laws, land can be rezoned for residential development simply with the signature of the Planning Minister of the day. Recent examples where this has occurred despite community concern is at Buckland Park and Mt Barker. Mr Rau believes that this current setup does not pass the “sniff test” and in the interests of public integrity, he wants to change it so that if any more land outside the current urban area is to be rezoned, it needs to pass through both Houses of State Parliament. It also means that all the land within the boundary will be developed first, meeting the Government’s target to increase infill, which has lower associated infrastructure costs. The exact lines on the map have not yet been drawn and will be particularly controversial in the north around Gawler.
Pros: Increases transparency around major planning decisions because the case for rezoning would have to be tested and agreed to in State Parliament.
Cons: Much of the development industry is opposes to the boundary, saying that installing an artificial limit housing development in the outer suburbs, which is often the most affordable housing, would stymie the state’s economy.
State Planning Commission
A independent authority that will essentially combine the current Development Assessment Commissioner and the Development Policy Advisory Committee but will be better resourced so it can also provide policy advice required as the reforms progress over the next few years. The minister cannot give direction to the commission where it is required to make a recommendation, provide advice or grant development approval.
Pros: Consolidates two existing planning bodies and puts them at the centre of the statewide system which should help to streamline new requirements.
Cons: Considering the vast amount of policy work the new reforms require the commission to provide advice on, it will need to be properly resourced to ensure it doesn’t create a backlog of applications.
Reducing the number of zones
SA’s complex and burdensome planning system is made up of more than 2500 combinations of zones and rules to control land use spread across 23,000 pages of planning documents. Mr Rau hopes that over the next couple of years, this will be reduced to about 40 and supported by new design codes to ensure that new developments visually fit in with their surrounds. About 90 per cent of applications currently go through a long and detailed assessment process but with reduced zones, many more would be able to be simply ticked off.
Pros: Reducing the number of zones will make the planning system much more simple, consistent and easy to work through. It is vital to the success of the whole reform package.
Cons: This is the single largest piece of work to be undertaken as part of the reforms and the longer it takes, the longer it will be until the reforms take effect.
Elected members removed from DAPs
Council Development Assessment Panels currently have a mixture of elected members and experts from fields including planning, architecture and engineering. But under the new scheme, only experts will be on the local panels. Mr Rau hopes that as the number of applications which pass through DAPs reduces as a results of fewer zones and other changes, that councils will groups together to hold regional DAPs.
Pros: Local politics will no longer be a factor in development approval.
Cons: Reduced oversight on the day-to-day running of the planning system by elected officials.
Participation charter
Details of the charter are still to be worked out but Mr Rau said it was one of the most important parts of the reform. It is intended to allow people the opportunity to contribute their ideas on what rules should apply to future developments in their area. Mr Rau said community input would be sought at the outset, not as an afterthought.
Pros: Means the community can have a say on the shape of their suburb before developments are proposed, rather than having to fight against inappropriate plans.
Cons: Because the charter hasn’t been drafted, it’s hard to assess how binding the commitment will really be.
E-planning
The planning system will go fully online within the next two to three years, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to access information about the rules that affect their property or a property they are looking to purchase. Planning applications will be lodged online and users will be able to track the process.
Pros: Will make the system much easier to navigate, removing the need to produce multiple paper copies of various forms and save time.
Cons: Will not be available for a few years and because some councils are already creating their own online systems, could cause some confusion and doubles ups when integrating.
Planning for the future, not the present
THE state’s planning system is on the cusp of the biggest reform in over 25 years.
This week I will introduce a new Bill into Parliament which will completely transform the planning in South Australia.
Our current system is increasingly failing to meet the new and emerging needs of our community and to deliver consistent and timely outcomes.
The new Bill makes a number of significant changes.
Firstly, there will be an emphasis on deeper consultation and community engagement, upfront, in the initial formation of policy. This is a win for communities.
Community engagement is needed at the outset when policy is being formulated, not at the back end, when individual approvals are being considered.
Elected council members will no longer sit on their council’s Development Assessment Panels. Individual developments will be approved by a panel of accredited professionals, not elected representatives.
This allows for greater confidence in a merit-based approvals process.
Local politics will be removed from the assessment process. Approvals will be faster and decisions will be more consistent.
The new legislation will also offer protection for our food production areas and unique environment.
At present, too much power rests with the minister. The minister can destroy prime agricultural land and environmental heritage with the stroke of a pen.
The Bill prevents opportunistic and inappropriate residential encroachment into this agricultural area by requiring due process before any rezone.
This also protects future taxpayers from paying billions of dollars in infrastructure costs beyond the four-year forward estimates.
We must utilise the land we have within the existing city footprint much better.
We need to encourage better infill and focus on growing Adelaide up rather than out. Our character suburbs need to be preserved.
The current patchwork approach of subdividing random blocks of land in 2-for-1 development needs to be refined.
Rezoning some areas allowing for greater density can actually help to better preserve our character areas.
This Bill is a break with mid-20th century views of city development and fixes our vision firmly on a vibrant development future.
- Deputy Premier John Rau