Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015

Like with any piece of reformist legislation, the State Government’s Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill is a mixed blessing. 

The Property Council has made it abundantly clear that we welcome much of the reform proposed in the Bill (for instance moves to de-politicise assessment, and some very pragmatic responses to red tape).  We note that there is much detail to come and a lot of the Act is principles-based and naturally it would be beneficial to have greater clarity around timing, content and intent of important supplements to the Bill. 

The Bill has passed the House of Assembly and is currently sitting in the Legislative Council, with the all-important committee stage of the debate commencing next week. 

As you might already be aware, there are two contentious parts of the legislation that have attracted the most attention. A statutory urban growth boundary and an infrastructure levy. As members of the Property Council, it’s important to understand the positions that we have taken with respect to these contentious components.  

Urban growth boundary

The requirement for both Houses of Parliament to amend planning boundaries is seen as far too inflexible, which will make it difficult for South Australia to react flexibly to demographic and economic changes in the context of a transitioning economy. 

The Property Council notes that the proposed environment and food protection areas (a.k.a. urban growth boundary) can be drawn at first instance by the Minister, but then any amendment requires the support of both Houses of Parliament.  We don’t see that such an entrenchment provision is warranted for what is a matter of planning and development policy, which should have the flexibility to change as required. Moreover, if independence is the intention for this reform, the Planning Commission could be empowered to have a greater role, along with a regime of Parliamentary scrutiny. 

Such a mechanism can also constrain supply and limit choice. For example, families who value extra space, or work outside of metropolitan areas, should have the ability to choose a house and lifestyle that suits their needs. We also see an entrenchment provision as potentially impeding the mature, considered development of future industry for the state, for instance the development of residential housing needs to support new industries, or the expansion of existing industries (for instance the food export market in regional areas close to agricultural zones).  

We recognise the need to protect the state’s food production areas (especially in the context of SA’s focus on growing its food exports); however, we do not support the mechanism as currently drafted as it is too inflexible, which could lock South Australia into a planning and zoning system that does not keep up with changing circumstances in the state, as it is too difficult to pass any amendments through both houses of Parliament going forward. 

Infrastructure levy

The State Government has recently introduced some amendments that are aimed at addressing industry’s concerns with the originally drafted provisions. It is our view that these provisions are an improvement on the original Bill; however, they need further work to ensure that property owners are not the subject of punitive taxation and that there are no unintended consequences associated with the infrastructure framework.  

Concerns raised to date include:

• A scheme should only be triggered on an area of land when development actually occurs.
• Approval of all affected property owners should be required.
• The need for cost-benefit analysis and rigour around infrastructure planning and delivery.
• The importance of depoliticising infrastructure provision.
• Need to ensure that any funds raised through such a scheme are guaranteed to be spent on delivery of the infrastructure and not rolled into general government revenue.

The Property Council has voiced these concerns with all key parliamentary stakeholders and, as you’re reading this, further amendments are being prepared to these provisions.

We are continuing to brief Members of Parliament on these amendments to ensure that the job-creating property sector – a sector that provides employment to almost 170,000 South Australians – is well placed to drive our state’s economy going forward.