Comments closed

Kathrine Matthews

01 Mar 2019

So many new house going up are two story now days to fit more house on blocks and sub divide. The issue I see with this is none of them suit any one with a disability. There other issue I see any housing projects aimed at people with a disability are in a retirement village setting, Not everyone with disabilities are over 65. May places around Adelaide still don't have decent footpaths making it difficult for people using wheelchairs. As much as I love our old buildings in CBD of Adelaide too few are accessible to wheelchair. They are those skinny building with the one flight of steep straight stairs. Many of these building are rented by small shops who have no hope of having the money to replace the stairs with a lift. There needs to be some way where either the owner of the building has to pay for it or a combination of the owner lessee and the government pay to have these fixed. This would go a long way to making the CBD accessible to everyone. At the planning level commercial buildings should make sure that they are wheelchair accessible this means more than just ramps and lifts. I mean making sure entry doors are suitable and doorways inside are wide enough.

Tony DiGiovanni

01 Mar 2019

There are a number of good things in the new planning regulations and some areas of concern.

Public Notifications.
I think the sign on the property is a good idea but should also include what we currently have today where the applicant must notify relevant neighbours by letter to ensure they are notified.
Sign should include website address to downloading plans.

Submission times to a development application / consultation should be between 2 weeks and 6 months depending on complexity of the development application.
It should also include time variation depending on the size of the development, the larger the development to reflect a longer time frame for submissions.
15 to 20 business day is too short especially for large and complex developments.

Person making a submission to a development application should have a right to be heard in person by the decision making authority.

Do not support the use of accredited private planning professionals in the planning system especially where applications are publicly notified. (no private accredited development approval)
This will create unlimited new problems and compliance issues.

‘Deemed-to-satisfy’ should not be assessed and approved by accredited professionals. This assessment should be undertaken by council.

Performance Assessed should have public notification by post to neighbouring houses and receive submission to the development application and right of appeal.

Restricted Developments should have right of appeal on development approval

Important Additional Points

There should be a right of appeal for certain planning levels or categories of developments in the ERD Court.

There should be a place or authority (like an ombudsman) to police and or investigate and correct planning rules and policies that are not followed in planning procedures and approval of developments. This is very important.

There should be an authority to ensure compliance is met when building (and built) an approved development which should be clearly stated who the authority is for Deemed-to-satisfy, Performance Assessed and Restricted Developments

Making planning changes which are more efficient is great but as highlighted above safe checks and rights of appeal must exist to ensure approvals are compliant and if not people have a right to appeal them. This is what makes a fair and democratic world.

BING BAI

28 Feb 2019

Thanks for the quick reply.
There are good points on "The Productive Economy discussion paper", especially:
--Strengthen and improve policy to support tourism.
-- Ensure on-site development activities complementary or ancillary to primary production are recognised in the Code.
--Review definitions in order to keep pace with modern farming practices, requirements or directions as well as provide greater certainty in relation to tourism development.

From my point of view, lifting the limit of dewelling size will bring the following benefits:
1. Affordable accommendations for farm worker and increase employ opportunity. Traffic could be reduced as more prople are living at where they are working. Pressure on urban or township land could be reduced.
2. Agricultural production will be improved due to increased HR available. Down stream sectors, food manufacturing and export, will get the benefits as well.
3. It would be easier for local people to be involved in the sharing economy, such as, using spare rooms for home staying business via the plateforms of Airbnb etc..

While the issued related to infrasture and extra waste can be addressed by applying new technologies in the development on farm land, for examples:
1. Solar energy for power supply
2. Compost toilet system intergreted with bio-gas and composted fertilizer generation.

BING BAI

28 Feb 2019

Thanks for the quick reply.
There are good points on , especially:
--Strengthen and improve policy to support tourism.
-- Ensure on-site development activities complementary or ancillary to primary production are recognised in the Code.
--Review definitions in order to keep pace with modern farming practices, requirements or directions as well as provide greater certainty in relation to tourism development.

From my point of view, lifting the limit of dewelling size will bring the following benefits:
1. Affordable accommendations for farm worker and increase employ opportunity. Traffic could be reduced as more prople are living at where they are working. Pressure on urban or township land could be reduced.
2. Agricultural production will be improved due to increased HR available. Down stream sectors, food manufacturing and export, will get the benefits as well.
3. It would be easier for local people to be involved in the sharing economy, such as, using spare rooms for home staying business via the plateforms of Airbnb etc..

While the issued related to infrasture and extra waste can be addressed by applying new technologies in the development on farm land, for examples:
1. Solar energy for power supply
2. Compost toilet system intergreted with bio-gas and composted fertilizer generation.(a mature technology in other countries)

BING BAI

27 Feb 2019

I am a farmer and need extra living space for my family and possible farm manager/staff. Adelaide Hill Council said:
"Proposing a second dwelling on the property would automatically trigger a Non-Complying form of development. Council generally will not support a second dwelling on an allotment.
If it is a dependant accommodation unit, the maximum floor area of the dependant accommodation unit shall be restricted to 72m² in a rural area and 60m² in township areas. The building should have an open floor plan with the only separate room being the bathroom (which may double as a laundry or the laundry integrated in the kitchen area). If a bedroom (separate room) is required for practical reasons there shall be a maximum of one bedroom. If the unit has more than one bedroom, is a self-contained residence and/or exceeds the size limitation detailed above, the building will be treated as separate ‘dwelling,’ not a dependant accommodation unit. "

The time is changing. We have solar power and waste treatment already, for examples. The guidelines are outdated. The building size limit in a farm is baseless and unreasonable.

The points are:
1.better environment protection can only be achieved by improving productivity. The planning guidelines should encourage better use the existing disturbed footprints. Otherwise people have to find a new place to build a new house. It then cost more for both the people and environment at the same time.
2. How can 72m² in a rural area and 60m² in township areas being considered a proper way? Where do the numbers come from? A farm of 30ha or 100ha is much larger than a 700 sqm block in a town. The space required for human and machinery, storage, etc.. in a farm are not at the same level as that for a town block. Clearly the people put these numbers on the guidelines have no idea what the real world is.

Suggestions:
1. Encouraging people better use their existing disturbed land, and apply new technology for the construction.
2. Lift size limits in farms , or link the size of building to the size of the farm, that is, larger farm can have larger building.
3.Let the land owner decide the details of their design, such as how many bedrooms. This is the kind of matter that the government has no right to control and cause extra workload at the same time.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform > BING BAI

28 Feb 2019

Thank you for your comments.

It sounds like your concerns are around the current policy in the Adelaide Hills Development Plan.

Development Plans will be converted to the Planning and Design Code in a three-phased roll-out. The policy that relates to Adelaide Hills is planned to be released for public consultation in late-2019, where you will be able to review the new development guidelines.

More information on the Planning and Design Code can be found at: https://www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/planning_reforms/new_planning_tools/planning_and_design_code

You can also subscribe to future updates on the Planning Reform to keep updated of any new consultations - just click 'Subscribe' on the top right corner of the webpage.

Darrell O'Brien

13 Feb 2019

The first priority for the planning regulations need to be the planning of Water,Electricity,sewer and communications supply equipment.
The government needs to Plan where water will come from, will water come from Murray river or will water come from desalination plant.
the government needs to plan where electricity will come from for the next fifty years not only 5 years. The building of a thorium power station to grow with the population growth and reduction of cost of power. The NBN is nearly rolled out and planning of new areas must involve underground supplies of power and electricity.
The government should be planning where the next housing development area will be and planning future access to the city area and employment area whether it be a technology area or manufacturing area for employment. The government should be planning high speed trains for transport to help grow new areas.
The government should plan a new route for trucks and trains between Tailem bend and Adelaide and Port Adelaide possibly via Strathalbyn and Southern Expressway.
New Housing areas could complement Tailem Bend and Strathalbyn and a new town between Southern Expressway and Tailem bend (50 year Plan).

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform > Darrell O'Brien

19 Feb 2019

Thank you for your ideas Darrell.

Christopher Goulding

05 Feb 2019

I have read through the fact sheet and was concerned that within the industry group there are no stakeholders like power (SAPN) Water (SA Water) communications (nbn / Telstra) as all of these stakeholders play such a major part in both the provision of services but also deal with the local councils to provision them.

Power, Water, communications forms an integral part in not only lodgement on the proposed new system but also accessibility within the same system for all lodgements would mean seemless provision and coordination of provision of services for the development.

SA Water need to open cut the road to provide sewage and water access - disturbing the bitumen, communications need to do the same thing... there is s complete lack of coordination between suppliers and timing for a development.

This could be brought together under the system so the road is only opened up once instead of 3 times?

Planning
Coordination
Service supplier notifications and applications All referenced back to the main application creating a consistent approach to development and services required as part of a development.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform > Christopher Goulding

07 Feb 2019

Hi Christopher, thanks for your comments.
If you have any further ideas of how utility works can be better coordinated, we encourage you to provide a formal submission; however your comments here will be noted.

Margaret Nelson

31 Jan 2019

I don't know if this is the right place to comment but in researching affordable housing for two young professionals, I went on to the affordable housing site. As far as I could work out there were either disgusting hovels, poor housing, go live in the country miles away from your work and family, and / or very expensive one or two bedroom flats that are supposed to be affordable, still with a hefty deposit. These one bedroom flats are potentially just slums of the future. They are not homes, they are fancy hostel type accommodation, maybe okay for a young single with a good income for a starter. But not all people who need affordable housing are young singles with a good income. $380,000 for a one bedroom flat is a con. Not for families. No matter they have some fancy environmental features (all new housing should have that as normal) or are near the sea (rising waters will put the cost down), and near amenities you won't be able to afford because you are paying off your hostel room. This is still not helping the lower income earners or families. While I am sure some people have benefited, I cannot see that this is affordable housing overall. How do we know multi story flats put up overnight are safe? Durable? Too many people know or have worked for builders who have taken short cuts and risked integrity of buildings. I don't trust it. thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform > Margaret Nelson

07 Feb 2019

Hi Margaret, thank you for your comments.

South Australia has an affordable housing scheme that endeavours to link people earning under a certain income threshold to a house. There are a number of different types of housing available through this scheme across the state to meet the varying needs of our diverse communities. Houses within this scheme are generally priced under $407,000 within metropolitan Adelaide (less within the regions and for apartments). While this is a dedicated program, there can also be a number of houses that are within or under this price range available on the open market.

South Australia also has a unique financing program through Home Start. This system assists people on low-medium incomes to purchase dwellings with minimal deposit, unique income streams and other situations. Repayments are set at an agreed and affordable rate. For your information I have attached a link to their website www.homestart.com.au

We hope this information assists you with your research.

Samela Harris

25 Jan 2019

It is a lot of reading - and still I can't see any mention of Category 1. Is this intended to remain as is?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform Communications & Engagement > Samela Harris

25 Jan 2019

Hi Samela, thank you for your question.
The 3 categories of public notification under the Development Act 1993 (Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3) will no longer apply under the new Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Instead, there will be three categories of development – accepted, code assessed and restricted.

Accepted development does not require planning consent (only building consent).

Code assessed development is either ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ or ‘performance assessed’. Deemed-to-satisfy development must be granted planning consent, and will not be publicly notified. Performance assessed development is assessed on its merits and will be publicly notified, unless specifically exempted by the Planning Rules.

Restricted development will always be publicly notified.

Current Category 1 development means that a development application will not be publicly notified. So in the new planning system, both deemed-to-satisfy development, as well as certain performance assessed development, would have the same effect as a current Category 1 application for public notification purposes.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform Communications & Engagement

21 Jan 2019

Hi Robyn, the link has been re-set and is now working. Please try again to gain access to the survey.
Thank you for comment.

Robyn Dunstan

20 Jan 2019

The online survey link does not appear to work

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Reform Communications & Engagement

17 Jan 2019

Thank you for your feedback Paul.

We encourage you to provide a formal submission; however your comments will be noted.

Paul McRostie

17 Jan 2019

The reforms are making processing applications difficult for Regional Councils. With low DA numbers Regional Councils cannot justify paying Planning and Building staff metro wages due to the qualifications they have and will need in regional Councils. These reforms are losing focus of Mr Rau initial quicker,easier, faster approach.