What are your thoughts on Phase Two and Phase Three of the draft Planning and Design Code?

To help you get involved and have your say we have prepared the following resources:

Share your thoughts by joining the discussion below.

Leave a comment

Brendon Madey

30 Dec 2019

Good evening,
Your line "The Code has been developed to respond to community and business frustration over the complexity of current planning processes" could have been simplified by removing the bit about community. This is more about business and developers out there looking for a quick profit, it has no regard for the community.
With the few houses I've bought over the years (to live in) it hasn't been hard to look up relevant council bylaws to see how your property is regulated. I cannot speak for all councils but Marion and Unley have put a lot of thought into their planning regulations thinking of the community first and foremost. When it comes to community I think of my local council, I definitely do not think of the state government.

Regards
Brendon

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Holmes

28 Dec 2019

In late 2017, the NSW Government Architect released Better Placed, an integrated and overarching design policy that provides a set of principles and guidance to support productivity, liveability and sustainability through good design.

Better Placed responds to concerns about impacts of poor design and recognises that good design adds value to a development. The policy establishes a baseline of what is expected to achieve good design across all projects in NSW, and that we should make the most of opportunities that will arise to incorporate good design in the development of new spaces and places.

Better Placed provides seven key objectives in the design of the built environment. They are:
1.Better fit – contextual, local and of its place
2.Better performance – sustainable, adaptable and durable
3.Better for community – inclusive, connected and diverse
4.Better for people – safe, comfortable and liveable
5.Better working – functional, efficient and fit for purpose
6.Better value – creating and adding value
7.Better look and feel – engaging, inviting and attractive

In addition to providing a benchmark for good design, Better Placed can also be used to guide specific projects where there is a gap in existing planning controls, for example in seniors housing and mixed-use developments.

Interesting decision Zammit v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1074 Commissioner Horton discussed how Better Placed, an overarching policy setting out the government’s position on design, as well as the object for good design in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 (EP&A Act) can be used to steer design.

1. Where do I find a similar policy statement under the proposed new rules ?
2. Where do I find a definition of "Good Design"?

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Jim Oakey

19 Dec 2019

Re: 120 Alexander Avenue BIBARINGA SA 5118 & The Adelaide Hills Zone

Planning Submission
Preamble
I/We (Glenys & Jim Oakey) lot 23 (120) Alexander Avenue Bibaringa SA 5118 (Title Volume: 5125 – Folio: 482 Certificate of Title: 41523 – Pt. SEC. 3328 & Pt. Sec. 3329, which is Lot 23 Alexander Avenue) It is situated on the border of Gawler Council and Playford Council divided mainly by Alexander Avenue. Effectively, to the north, on the Gawler side of Alexander Avenue it is zoned Country Living and on the southern side of Alexander Avenue, on the Playford side it is zoned Hills Face.
There are several anomalies in the development of the hills face over the recent years from Para Hills through Salisbury Heights housing development, through the extensive Graigmore/Blakeview Hills face housing development and vineyard development to the rezoning of the subdivision on Tiver Road from Playford Council to Gawler Council resulting in 2.5acre small holdings on the hills face with new dwellings and associated shedding on the same level on the hills face as my property at 120 Alexander Avenue.
The issues:
Lot 23 (120) Alexander Avenue is on two titles (Title Volume: 5125 – Folio: 482 Certificate of Title: 41523 – Pt. SEC. 3328 & Pt. Sec. 3329, which is Lot 23 (120) Alexander Avenue) being approximately 20 acres, it has the original Riggs family farm house as the dwelling on the property. All other land divisions in the area are 10 acre lots affected by the Riggs family in 1974.
Salisbury Heights extends from Golden Grove Road over the hills and down the hills face to Salisbury Plains with high density estate housing development. Resulting in housing estates sprawling across the hills face willy-nilly since the early 80’s.
Craigmore Heights/Smithfield has high density housing developments extending up and into the hills face. With an adjoining extensive vineyard development (established without council approval.)
Playford Council has established a visible rubbish dump in the hill face adjacent to Munno Para.
Above Tiver Road, land on the hills face by subsuming it into the Gawler Council district, has been subdivided into 2.5acre allotments, with new dwellings, shedding etc. These subdivisions are at the same elevation on the hillside as my property/dwelling (Title Volume: 5125 – Folio: 482 Certificate of Title: 41523 – Pt. SEC. 3328 & Pt. Sec. 3329, which is Lot 23 (120) Alexander Avenue) which has hills face planning restrictions imposed upon it by Playford Council & the S A Government.
There would appear to be considerable ad hoc planning and serious anomalies in the way the hills face zone is being currently managed with councils rezoning areas for housing development on the hills face inconsistently resulting in housing estates sprawling across the hills face willy-nilly from Para Hills, Salisbury Heights to Tiver Road.
Ignoring these obvious elephants in the room or should I say on the Adelaide Hills face, which is peppered with relatively recent high density housing developments, quarry scars, vineyards etc. If you travel from Para Hills to Gawler, these anomalies can be clearly observed.
Salisbury Heights is a high-density housing development which covers the hills face, which spreads over the top via Golden Grove Road to Tea Tree Gully. All of which has happened since the early 1980’s. The Hills Face has been rezoned at Salisbury Heights to allow the high-density housing development, which can be seen from miles away especially from the Northern Expressway as one conveniently moves north. I could provide photographic evidence but it is illegal to stop on the Expressway.
Blakeview Height is also a high-density housing development which extends up the hills face from Elizabeth through Smithfield to Munno Para. There is a clearly defined refuse dump relatively recently developed by Playford Council visible from Main North Road despite attempts to hide it. There is also a substantial vineyard development which abuts the housing development, apparently created without approval from Playford Council.
The Tiver Road 2.5acre subdivisions this decade has seen new houses built on the Hills Face, with the area being rezoned from Playford Council to Gawler Council and thus I assume classed as Country Living? As previously stated, the new houses developed on this part of the hills face are on the same elevation as my property on Alexander Avenue, which is classified as Hills Face and thus development is restricted.
Alexander Avenue provides the line on the map where Hill Face meets Country Living. On the Playford side of the road is classified as Hills Face step across the road a couple of meters and you are in Gawler and zoned Country Living. Therefor houses pepper the hillside in high housing developments on the hills face above Gawler.
All this is a trifle perplexing in relating to my dilemma in relation to my property on 120 Alexander Avenue. Lot 23 has 2 titles consisting of 20 acres. (Title Volume: 5125 – Folio: 482 Certificate of Title: 41523 – Pt. SEC. 3328 & Pt. Sec. 3329, which is Lot 23 Alexander Avenue) It was the original Riggs family farm when the area was subdivided into 10 acre lots in 1974, all other adjacent properties are 10acre blocks.
My request is to be able to achieve an equitable division of the property into two 10acre allotments, it already has two titles and we are paying two lots of rates and taxes on it. This would result in only one dwelling being developed rather than a whole community of housing sprawling across the land for example let’s say at Salisbury Heights, Blakeview or Tiver Road.
All attempts on my part to achieve parity since 2007 have been thwarted by silence, intransigence and mystery, with little or no information being shared on the reasons for the above mentioned anomalies of high density development along the Hills Face whilst I am restricted on the micro level to inaction, developers appear to be able to cover any part of the Hills Face with houses, multiple developments including vineyards and rubbish dumps on a macro level with impunity?
I would like clarity on:
• How was Salisbury Heights approved for the development of a vast and expansive housing development on the Hills Face above Salisbury?
• How was Blakeview Heights approved for the development of a vast and expansive housing development on the Hills Face through Smithfield to Munno Para?
• How was Tiver Road approved for small holding (2.5acre) blocks?
• Why is Alexander Avenue the demarcation line between Hills Face and Country Living?
• Why can a horticulturist develop a huge vineyard on the Hills Face at Blakeview Heights without prior planning approval from Playford Council and SA Government?
• Why can there be a housing estate on the hills overlooking Gawler but vetoed on the hills overlooking Evanston?
• Why and How can Playford Council develop a refuse dump in the Adelaide Hills at Munno Para?
• Why can’t I subdivide my already subdivided land 0n two titles (Title Volume: 5125 – Folio: 482 Certificate of Title: 41523 – Pt. SEC. 3328 & Pt. Sec. 3329, which is Lot 23 Alexander Avenue) for legitimate sale with building approval for a dwelling.
• If I can’t subdivide why am I paying double taxes on the land?
• Why could the Riggs family subdivide their farm in the first place into 10 acre blocks? (excluding lot 23 Alexander Ave, which by now you know to be 20acres ish!) in 1974?

Yours sincerely
James Anthony (Jim) Oakey 14/11/2019

Addendum:
From a long-term planning perspective:
There is a planned upgrade and electrification of the Adelaide to Gawler railway line with established passenger stations along the line. It would appear logical to develop high density new housing accommodation along all the hills face above this line from Adelaide to Gawler, maintaining the alluvial flood plains for long term food production, especially around the Gawler River area. It is obvious, if we intend to attract/encourage more people to populate South Australia there needs to be more development. But the Adelaide alluvial plains up to Two Wells should be preserved for the production of the food they will need, not the development of housing estates. Housing estates developed on the plains consume arable land which should be reserved for food production.
At Mount Barker for example, there are extensive new high-density housing developments with calls for additional extensive transport infrastructure to accommodate the necessary commute to Adelaide for residents.
While it is desirable to live in the hills at Mount Barker (with scant transport infrastructure links) there is plenty of hills space left ripe for development between Salisbury Heights and Gawler, with the established Adelaide/Gawler railway line there with easy access for the commute.

Yours sincerely
James Anthony (Jim) Oakey 13/12/2019

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Jim Oakey

16 Jan 2020

Hi Jim,
Thank you for your feedback and for your formal submission which has been received.
Kind regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Mary Morris

01 Dec 2019

With regard to the Consultation on the Discussion paper on Renewable Energy which closes on 28 February 2020, can you please provide an dedicated Yoursay webpage for this Renewable Energy consultation?
I have been contacted by several people because they can't find it on the Planning Portal and want to submit comments. After spending quite a while looking today, I have realised that they can't find it because there doesn't appear to be one.

While the website indicated that the Renewable Energy Discussion Paper was released in July 2019, It is not immediately obvious that a dedicated consultation period is currently happening.
The current "Decisions awaiting your influence" webpage DOES NOT show that there is specific consultation happening on Renewable Energy Policy and that this closes on Feb 28 2020.
I am aware that feedback on the Renewable energy policy can be submitted as part of the Draft P&D Code for Phase Two and Three, but this is not particularly obvious on the planning website or "Decisions awaiting your influence" webpage.
Even on entering "renewable" as a search term on the Planning Commission webpage, the search comes up with (0) results.
Without a dedicated and obvious webpage, the Renewable Energy Consultation is in danger of flying under the radar for many people who would like to contribute, but can't find any obvious reference to it on the Planning Portal.
Thanks for scheduling a Renewable Energy Forum at Eudunda on December 4. Will other sessions be held around the state?

Mary Morris > Mary Morris

01 Dec 2019

After investigating further, I have found that there is something about it on the Planning Portal, but not on YOURSAY which is where people are going to take part in the engagement.
So a dedicated renewable energy page on YOURSAY assist people who want to provide feedback.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Paul Thomas

29 Nov 2019

The future planning for houses must include tiny houses. Having laws which allow tiny houses on property and for councils to have land set aside for tiny self sufficient houses. This has so many benefits for people pushed out of the housing market due to price and environmental sustainability.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Paul Thomas

04 Dec 2019

Hi Paul,
Thank you for your feedback, it has been passed on to our planning team.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Kuhlmann

29 Nov 2019

Affordable housing is a big problem for many people particularly in rural areas.
There is a lot of interest in Tiny Houses and this type of housing does not appear to be recognized within the current planning code.
I personally have built a Tiny House on Wheels (THROW) to have on my property for overnight use for guests or friends to use. I have completed a lot of revegetation on my property and have had Workshops and Field Days here so accommodation for visitors is a good use for a THROW. I built the Tiny House using recycled materials where possible and not counting labour has cost less than twenty thousand dollars. This is an example of the type of affordable housing that could be used for permanent living if only there were adequate guidelines for Council to approve the dwelling. As a THROW does not fit entirely into the category of Caravan or Permanent Structure or any other current classification there in the opportunity to create new an innovative guidelines. Within all of the Rules and Regulations is there any area where FIT FOR APPLICATION could allow Councils to approve something that does not fit into the regular boxes. Obviously it is necessary to have Rules for Safety etc, but Affordable Housing should be a Human Right without undue restrictions. Given the choice many would prefer a modest comfortable dwelling to live in rather than a six bedroom twelve bathroom lifetime Mortgage.
Tiny Houses can be part of the solution and need serious consideration in the Planning and Design Code.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Peter Kuhlmann

04 Dec 2019

Hi Peter,
Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback. We have passed this on to the planning team.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Michelle Jahn

29 Nov 2019

want to legally park and live on land as a throw.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Michelle Jahn

04 Dec 2019

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for providing your feedback, it has been passed on to the planning team.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Kym McKay

29 Nov 2019

The spin and diatribe DPTI and Planning SA are putting out is mere dictatorship not consultation, many of the so called reforms that have been presented show suburbs earmarked for infill destruction, these 2 depts have not even considered the facts that service providers like SA Water , Gas , SA Power networks etc do not have capacity already in some areas to service current housing levels let alone the infill ghettos they are proposing on postage stamp size allotments, car parks designed for fiat bambino’s not SUVs, front set backs reduced this is all for their developer sponsors and the DPTI television ad that is coming is full of spin , fluff and patronising self back slapping praise, it makes “old Mates advert” look good. These reforms equal , no say on how your area will look, you won’t be allowed to be consulted, this is pure dictatorship which DPTI excel in.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Christel Mex

29 Nov 2019

The Code is trying to do two things simultaneously – collapsing all council development plans into one code while at the same time developing brand-new software for a ‘tix-box’ online portal. This is a mammoth task, and while Parliament may have thought this was achievable in 2017, a project of this magnitude obviously needs more than two years to design and implement.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Mary Morris

18 Nov 2019

Consultation for Phase Two - Rural Areas closes on November 29 2019 and Phase Three closes on 28 February 2020.
For hay and grain farmers in the Rural Areas the consultation period has been scheduled for the busiest time of the year when people are going day and night with hay and harvest work and haven't got time to fully consider and respond to the 1800+ page document.
In addition it appears that a planning commission forum to be held on 4 December 2019 in the Goyder Council area to address the renewable energy aspect of the Code will be held AFTER the deadline for submissions has closed. Consequently issues arising from the public forum will not be included in the Rural Areas consultation.
I request that the deadline for the Rural Areas consultation be extended to 28 February 2020 to allow the majority of broadacre farmers in the Rural Areas adequate time to complete their harvest, take advantage of the Christmas Holiday period and have still adequate time to consider and respond to the consultation documents.
It would not be appropriate to schedule a shorter consultation period for wine grape growers in the middle of vintage, so please extend the same courtesy to the grain and hay growers of the Rural Areas.
In addition, a forum on the renewable energy aspects of the Code run by the planning commission has been scheduled for 4 December in the Goyder Council Area which will only provide feed back AFTER the Rural Areas consultation period has closed.
If the planning commission is serious about proper and meaningful consultation with Rural Areas farming communities, then extending the deadline to February 28 must occur.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Mary Morris

29 Nov 2019

Hi Mary,
The State Planning Commission released its discussion paper on Proposed Changes to Renewable Energy Policy in the Planning and Design Code on 25 July 2019 and will continue to accept feedback on this important topic until 28 February 2020. The discussion paper can be accessed on the SA Planning Portal Have Your Say webpage. Following the release of the Renewable Energy discussion paper the draft renewable energy policies were released in the draft Planning and Design Code on 1 October 2019. In total a period of seven months has been provided for the public to comment on proposed policies that reflect new forms of energy generation, storage and distribution as well as guidance regarding intensity, location and impacts of these developments on communities and the environment. All feedback provided on renewable energy aspects of the Code whether it be via a formal submission on the Code, feedback on the discussion paper or in person at community information sessions being held across the State, such as the one specifically on renewable energy on 4 December 2019 in Eudunda, will be taken into account by the State Planning Commission.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Mary Morris > Mary Morris

29 Nov 2019

Thanks for clarifying about the renewable energy deadline.
In terms of the short consultation period I was referring to the Phase Two doc which I believe only became available at the start of October.
Our community is looking forward to giving feedback about wind farm impacts at Eudunda on Wednesday and I trust that the commission will be sensitive and receptive to the legitimate concerns raised at the meeting by residents already impacted.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Rob Mair

31 Oct 2019

I've read the Phase Two and Three of the draft Planning and Design Code and wow, it's a lot for the layman to absorb. However I have a scenario that I can't find an answer for in the many pages of the drafts.

I own a Tiny House On Wheels [THOW]. It is built to the codes for road transport and the few regulations regarding caravans which mainly cover safety. The size is 36m2. It is off-grid with all the modern conveniences of a small house. In fact it looks more like a well designed small building than a caravan. I wish to live in it permanently as my principal place of residence.

Scenario One.
I own a small residential allotment with all services nearby. There are no other structures on the site. Can I place my THOW on the allotment?

Scenario Two.
I placed an advertisement in a country newspaper wanting to rent space on a rural property to park my THOW. I received several replies from landowners of both vacant acreage and occupied by the owners properties.

The question that I have, will the above by legally possible under the new Planning and Design Code as in the current drafted form or will it need amendments?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Rob Mair

04 Dec 2019

Hi Rob,
Firstly we wish to apologise for the length of time taken to respond to the two scenarios about your Tiny House On Wheels. We have received a large volume of feedback and questions during this consultation and we are working to individually respond to all enquiries. We have passed on your scenarios to members of our planning team and we will provide you with a response as soon as possible.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Rob Mair > Rob Mair

05 Dec 2019

Hello DPTI Team,
Thank you for the response. I am looking forward to your feed back.
Take Care.
Rob.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Julie Fiedler

15 Oct 2019

It is really great news to have the 'or hand feeding' dropped from the definition of horse keeping. For nearly 20 years Horse SA has been lobbying for a change in the current regulation. CURRENT REGULATION (LAW): Horse keeping means “the keeping or husbandry of horses where more than 1 horse is kept per 3 hectares of land used for such purposes or where hand feeding of a horse is involved" (Development Regulations 2008 Definitions—Schedule 1)
PROPOSED NEW LAW: Horse keeping means “the keeping or husbandry of horses where more than 1 horse is kept per 3ha of land used for such purposes". (Pg. 2966, Part 7 of the Code - Land Use Definitions
This is a much-needed change which is most welcome.
Julie Fiedler, Executive Officer, Horse SA.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Julie Fiedler

24 Oct 2019

Hi Julie,
Thank you for your feedback on the draft Planning and Design Code for Phase Two and Phase Three.
We encourage you to submit your feedback as a formal submission so that it can be considered as part of the consultation, by filling out the submission form on the SA Planning Portal at www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/have_your_say/Draft_Planning_and_Design_Code_for_South_Australia#feedback
The submission form includes a number of sections that relate to specific topics within the Code, as well as a section for general feedback.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Julie Fiedler

24 Oct 2019

Hi Julie,
Thank you for your feedback on the draft Planning and Design Code for Phase Two and Phase Three.
We encourage you to submit your feedback as a formal submission so that it can be considered as part of the consultation, by filling out the submission form on the SA Planning Portal at www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/have_your_say/Draft_Planning_and_Design_Code_for_South_Australia#feedback
The submission form includes a number of sections that relate to specific topics within the Code, as well as a section for general feedback.
Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.