State Commission Assessment Panel chief says further transparency would prevent ‘robust debate’

Intimidation by the public is a reason why a powerful planning body’s discussions should remain secret, state parliament has heard.

The State Commission Assessment Panel will consider whether to approve this 165m apartment development at Glenelg. Picture: Chasecrown

The chief member of the state’s most powerful planning assessment body has resisted calls to increase public scrutiny of the agency, claiming it would not lead to better decisions.

The State Commission Assessment Panel considers hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of projects each year including some of the most controversial and state significant projects such as the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval.

But panel presiding member Rebecca Thomas has told state parliament she did not agree with increasing transparency of panel deliberations, claiming it would prevent “robust debate” among members.

“Having sat on a council panel as well as the SCAP, the nature of the proposals that we are dealing with necessitate, in my view, that we give a particularly robust review and thorough discussion,” she told the Legislative Review Committee earlier this month.

“I think the ability to have those kinds of robust debates in camera and not feel intimidated by a public gallery, to get to the bottom of and investigate all the various issues that we need to touch on, is best achieved in camera, in my view.”

The SCAP approved the $31m Granite Island causeway at Victor Harbor in March behind closed doors. Picture: DIT

Ms Thomas, who is director of planning firm Ekistics, disagreed that having “frank and fearless” discussion in public would allow “better decision-making”.

The Legislative Review Committee is investigating potential reforms to the state’s planning system including the operation of the panel - which considers projects above $10m in the CBD and regionally significant projects.

In 2018 the government - which hand picks the nine-member panel - granted public access to hearings for the first time, allowing people to watch presentations by applicants and objectors.

Planning proposals and detailed reports were also made public but the panel’s deliberations remained in secret, preventing the public from fully understanding how the SCAP made its decisions.

Ms Thomas told the committee that it was “more common” for the panel to disagree in deliberations.

“As I said, that robust discussion, particularly for some of the CBD items, can be well in excess of an hour or more ... before we are in a position to make a decision,” she said.

SCAP meeting minutes do not indicate how members’ voted on a proposal.

Ms Thomas did “not believe” that council planning authorities deliberated “in camera”.

Michael Lennon, former chair of the State Planning Commission which oversees the SCAP, said the panel was not an elected body and was appointed to do its job.

“In this respect, having allowed everyone to see what is being discussed and debated, the view is that, at the point at which there needs to be an exchange of free and frank information in order to reach a decision, that should be allowed to be done in private,” he told the committee.

Another landmark building given the tick by the SCAP is the future Services Australia office building on King William St. Picture: Cox Architecture

SA Greens MLC Mark Parnell said fact that the SCAP board was not an elected body should not prevent it making its deliberations in public.

“The decisions are done behind closed doors in secret ... and we have no idea how these decisions are made,” he said.

“The SCAP has made some shocking decisions and it beggars belief how they have supported projects such as the private tourist accommodation in (Kangaroo Island’s Flinders Chase National Park.”

Among other notable projects SCAP has approved include the $31m Granite Island Causeway, the $500m office block,

It will also determine the fate of a controversial 13-storey $165m apartment tower to replace the historic Seawall Apartments at Glenelg.

Critics argue the proposal should not be allowe because zoning for the location is five storeys.

The zoning for the area is five stories.