Observations on SA Government Response to Expert Panel Review of Planning System

The Final report and government response

Of the Panel’s 113 recommendations, the state government has supported 63 in full, 13 in principle, and 36 in principle with further investigation. Only one recommendation has not been supported for implementation.

This article contains observations on the impact of the government responses. You can read SPRA's submission to the planning review.

Recommendation No. 1 Third party appeal rights should be restored for over height proposed developments.

The government supports this but has excluded the Central Business District, Strategic Growth Areas, areas where the State Planning Commission is the relevant authority and areas where State Design Review applies.

These exceptions have been made to address the housing and affordability crisis, the government says. But these exceptions make the restoration of appeal rights very limited.

Recommendation No. 12 Local Heritage Places are to be removed from the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act and incorporated into the Heritage Places Act to align them with State Heritage Places.

The government supports this and will make further investigations.

This move weakens the protection of Representative Buildings, which are third tier heritage in the eyes of the public. There is a failure in the government’s comments to acknowledge the historic character of Representative Buildings makes them important. The expert panel said the role of Representative Buildings in the hierarchy of heritage and character should be considered. But according to the government “Representative buildings are entirely separate from matters of heritage (noting they relate to the character of an area)”. This is a dangerous and foolhardy statement and shows the government does not understand what Representative Buildings are.

Recommendation 23 The State Planning Commission is to review the size and purpose of Catalyst Sites.

The government supports this.

This is probably a good move, without being unduly optimistic about the final outcome.

Recommendation 24 Demolition of all dwellings are to be recorded on an e-Planning Portal. Notification of an intended demolition is to be given to a council in advance.

The government supports this.

It is an improvement on the current system.

Recommendation 25 The establishment and use of Local Design Review panels is to be mandated.

The government supports this.

It is probably meant to be used at local council level. Councils often struggle to meet the time limits for assessing new development applications and time to have applications pass through a design review panel will delay matters more. On the plus side, better design would be a welcome outcome. Council Assessment Panels are told they are not there to improve the design of development applications but to assess them on their existing merits.

Recommendation 32 The role of Representative Buildings should be reviewed.

The government supports this in principle. “

The government acknowledges Representative Buildings are a contentious aspect of our planning system … Whilst Representative Buildings are not to be confused as a ‘third tier’ of heritage protection, in the absence of specific policy pertaining to them, it is currently unclear how Representative Buildings are intended to function in the Code”, says the government.
However Representative Buildings are not “contentious” to the public who fought a long battle to have them even listed in the Planning and Design Code. They may be contentious to developers and those bureaucrats and politicians fighting a rear-guard action to weaken their status. Despite supporting the expert panel recommendation, the government thinks rather than reviewing the role of Representative Buildings, the State Planning Commission should prepare a Practice Guideline “which identifies and explains how Representative Buildings are linked to the Character Statement for an area. This Practice Guideline should reinforce the face Representative Buildings are not heritage and their inclusion in the Code is to demonstrate the type of character sought in the area”.

Bah, humbug is my reaction. This is an attack on the importance of retaining our historic housing stock much of which is 100 year old (or more) of bluestone and sandstone dwellings set in garden suburbs. These houses have heaps of embedded energy in them and they are beautiful. Our historic housing areas provide the setting for most Local Heritage Places. The LHPs are the jewels in the Crown, I say. But the historic dwellings are an essential part of the Crown. The failure of the government to appreciate our Historic Overlay areas is a tragedy and can only be due to developers and bureaucrats agitating to open up more areas, especially in our older suburbs, to new development.

Practice Guidelines are also often dreadful documents issued by State government planners to tell council planners what to do. They are often dumbed-down and simplistic instructions. There is no public oversight of them as they are hidden from the public.

Recommendation 35 Prior to being moved into the Heritage Places Act 1993, places identified as Local Heritage Places should be reviewed to ensure they meet all relevant criteria.

The government supports this and will investigate further. There are 7250 Local Heritage Places (LHPs) and poor old councils will be expected to do this work including writing to all owners of LHPs and giving owners a chance to comment. This does seem an excessive requirement and is also likely to be very expensive.

Trees

Seven early recommendations were made on 23 January 2023 and all were supported by the government. Nine recommendations came later. These nine are as follows.

Recommendation 36 There should be a review of the intersection between the PDI Act and the Native Vegetation Act.

The government supports this in principle.

Recommendation 37 The Planning and Design Code is to support “design innovation to enable the retention of trees”.

The government supports this. (A Code Amendment will be required for this).

Recommendation 38 The Urban Tree Canopy Overlay (UTCO) is to be extended to all new allotments in the Master Planned Neighbourhood Zone.

The government supports this.

Recommendation 39 Extend the UTCO and the Regulated and Significant Tree Overlays to townships.

The government supports this.

Recommendation 40 The UTCO Scheme fees should be increased.

The government supports this.

It is a pity the expert panel does not seem to have recommended that the UTCO be extended to cover commercial developments in commercial zones. It is so important that shopping centre carparks have trees to provide shade for hundreds of parked cars and it is also a pity if offices and new supermarkets fail to have adequate shady trees planted in their carparks and to soften their often harsh appearance. If we are to have any hope of growing a decent canopy to protect people from hot summers, we need to use all opportunities at our disposal.

Infill Policy

Recommendation 45 Design guidelines are to be prepared with industry input to promote different types of infill. Government supports this.

Recommendation 46 The Planning and Design Code policy on strategic sites is to be reviewed. Government supports this. (same as “catalyst” sites?)

Recommendation 47 The P and D Code provisions on private open space should be reviewed.

The government supports this with further investigations.

Recommendation 48 The storage policy for apartments should apply to all housing. (The problem of people using garages for storage).

The government supports this.

Recommendation 49 A basic landscaping plan should be provided for all infill developments to document how landscaping provisions of the Code are being met.

The government supports this and will investigate.

The trouble with “basic” landscaping plans is you will get a few drawings of geraniums and lollypop trees done by someone’s uncle, plus no identification of species. All landscaping plans for infill developments should be required to be done by a qualified landscape person. People contruct urban infill to make money. To suggest that they can’t afford to employ a qualified person to prepare a landscaping plan is an insult to the public and bodes poorly for the future greenery, or lack thereof, in suburbs with urban infill and the residents living in these developments.

Car Parking

Recommendation 50 Minimum garage dimensions are to be increased.

The government supports this.

Recommendation 55 The Affordable Housing Overlay is to apply to all residential, neighbourhood and activity centre zones.

The government supports this.

Recommendation 56 The State Planning Commission is to prepare material on the role of planning in managing climate change.

The government supports this.

Minor Items

One item of interest is that the Planning and Design Code is to change Performance Outcome 6.1 in the Local Heritage Place Overlay to exclude deterioration due to neglect as a supporting factor for demolition, as in the State Heritage Place Overlay. A local example of this is Bell's Plumbers Shop. It is a pity that this change will not apply to Representative Buildings in the Historic Area Overlay.