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

Now Closed

This online engagement was hosted on YourSAy from 1 Oct 2019 to 28 February 2020. Find out more about the consultation process. Below is a record of the engagement.

 

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

Share your thoughts by joining the discussion below.

Comments closed

Julie-Ann Bennett

28 Feb 2020

I request that the Code not be implemented until next year and that a second draft is released first, to ensure adequate community consultation.
I believe that local government and local communities should be much more autonomous with regard to planning approvals.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Julie-Ann Bennett

28 Feb 2020

Hi Julie-Ann,

Thank you for your feedback.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Shahram De

28 Feb 2020

Not enough time has been provided to members of the public for review
This new development plan has businesses in mind not the residents
It takes away control from people and local council and leaves it at the hand of businesses which have lobbying power with state government

Please leave any decisions on planning until 2021.

A second draft of Code be released and needs to be provided to ensure proper community consultation.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Shahram De

28 Feb 2020

Hi Shahram,

Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback. All feedback will be passed on to our planning team.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Jane Muras

28 Feb 2020

Please leave any decisions on planning until 2021.

A second draft of Code be released and needs to be provided to ensure proper community consultation.

Cheers Jane Muras

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Jane Muras

28 Feb 2020

Hi Jane,

Thank you for your feedback on the draft Planning and Design Code consultation.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Tim Kelly

28 Feb 2020

Yoursay states that:
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 5:00 PM

DPTI states that "Phase Three submissions close midnight 28 February 2020".

The difference is annoying.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Tim Kelly

28 Feb 2020

Hi Tim,

We apologise for this and we can confirm that submissions for Phase Three of the draft Planning and Design Code close at midnight tonight, Friday 28 February.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Gail Stead

28 Feb 2020

All this new planning and design codes" are doing is giving more control to DPTI and Their mates in Private Development and the rich developers to side track any consultation with the community surrounding any new development, they can do as they please. So instead of back room deals ,now they will now have a "planning code" which gives them Cart Blanche to build eve to eve and right up to the boundaries without consulting neighbors or anyone else who might have an issue with the development. Pack em , stack, rack em, and sell them, Pull down all the trees and live in concrete jungle just so DPTI/government and Minister Knoll can pocket the money and say to the public we have more money to spend on infrastructure, more roads to no where and the developers get rich building more Lego blocks, we are trying now to compete with the gold coast on Anzac Highway with these Lego Blocks and ever so secretly they are creeping into the side streets , and soon they will be in every street, thats what this planning code is all about, taking the voice of the people and the right of the people to have a say, and councils who help the people have a voice, so the back rooms deals are now "legitimate because it has a code" When you email the minister you get the stock standard reply , so I imagine this will be no different as its already in progress.Eventually DPTI and the Government as a hold will have nothing left to sell.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Gail Stead

28 Feb 2020

Hi Gail,

Thank you for your feedback,

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Rebecca Ebert

28 Feb 2020

Dear State Planning Commission members,

At Eudunda on December 4, I was advised that the proposed setback distances from wind turbines in the new draft Code were largely governed by recommendations from the EPA. These recommendations related to noise guidelines and the committee was “sort of duty-bound” to follow them.

This didn’t make sense to me because earlier in the evening I had been told that the proposed setback distances related to visual amenity. I couldn’t see the correlation. These are two completely different assessment criteria.

I followed up by emailing DPTI and was advised that the proposed setback distances relate to visual amenity and public safety (nothing to do with the noise guidelines, apparently).

However, when I then asked for the justification supporting the setback distances chosen, DPTI was unable to provide any evidence or rationale, other than to say that the distances build on existing wind farm policy introduced in 2012 which was “widely consulted” at the time and to which I was helpfully sent a link.

I followed this link and read the associated documents. This is what the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) 2012 report stated in regards to visual amenity:

A policy which embodies a “precautionary approach” is favoured by DPAC. “For this reason, it is considered that, subject to qualification regarding accumulation and height of wind turbines and topography (discussed below), two (2) kilometres could be nominated as the distance by which a wind turbine should be setback from a dwelling to manage visual impacts.” (p.11).

Did DPTI send me this link in order to mock me? Did they want to show me that they have a proven record of ignoring even their own advisory committees?

Furthermore, as this minimum 2km setback was recommended at a time when wind turbines were an average of 120 meters high, and, with turbine heights now frequently being double this height, logic would suggest that the minimum setback distance should now be 4kms, instead of the 1.2 km minimum setback currently proposed by DPTI.

Ever the optimist, I thought, ‘Well, the proposed setback distances won’t protect the visual amenity but surely there are other, more detailed performance based criteria that a wind farm must meet?’

Sure enough, there are numerous visual amenity conditions for renewable energy projects including obscuring the view of infrastructure, siting below ridgelines and avoiding impacting visually sensitive landscapes. I could breathe a small sigh of relief. As a type of renewable energy, at least wind farms would need to meet these planning laws.

Until I read that wind farms have been exempted from meeting the visual amenity guidelines for renewable energy project. Wait. How could this be?

No. It’s true. The single biggest form of renewable energy that will impact visual amenity is exempted from meeting the visual amenity conditions. How did this suggestion get even get to the consultation stage? Is someone in DPTI playing an in-house joke that has gone too far?

Reading on in the Code, the only visual amenity conditions wind farms need to meet, other than the deeply inadequate setbacks previously mentioned, are to make the turbines uniform, have the blades rotate together and to have tubular rather than lattice towers.

Regardless of DPTI’s political agenda, this is so extraordinarily unjust I don’t even know where to begin.

Wind farms should adhere the same visual amenity requirements as all other renewable energy projects and DPTI should look at adopting the setback distances first proposed to them in 2012 by their own advisory committee.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Rebecca Ebert

28 Feb 2020

Hi Rebecca,

Thank you for your feedback, it has been passed on.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement

Mary Morris

28 Feb 2020

Dear Planning Commission members

I see that in your reply to Mike Amen's question about how you determined the 1.2 km setback distance from wind turbines to rural dwellings you said …….

"The figure of 1.2km is based on best practice, recent assessment data and operation projects. Many of the eastern states have created planning guidelines for renewables which have assisted us in determining what are appropriate set back distances.."

This is pretty vague.
Best practice according to … who exactly ?
What "recent assessment data"?
What "operation projects" ?

Regarding looking to the eastern states to assist you in determining appropriate setback distances, if we look at the specifics of other States’ policy, and examine the National Wind Farm Commissioner's (NWFC) 2018 Annual Report we see that:
QLD has a 1.5 km setback and more restrictive noise criteria than SA does for rural areas.
NSW does not stipulate a setback, but has a 44 page bulletin detailing how Visual Impact Assessments should be carried out. See https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Bulletins-and-Community-Updates/wind-energy-visual-assessment-bulletin-2016-12.pdf NSW also has more restrictive noise criteria than SA and in 2019 the NSW Department of Planning refused consent of Crookwell 3 wind farm on Visual Amenity grounds.
Victoria has a 1 km setback (and just look at the emerging trail of noise nuisance cases that are springing up in Victoria ie Bald Hills wind farm declared a noise nuisance by the local council and now off to Court, Cape Bridgewater wind farm , MacArthur wind farm!).
Victoria's EPA also requires auditing of all noise reports.
Victoria's "Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria Policy and Planning Guidelines" (last revised March 2019) also prohibit turbines on land within five kilometres of major regional cities and centres specified in the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework plan in the PPF, being: Ararat, Bairnsdale, Ballarat, Bendigo, Benalla, Colac, Echuca, Geelong, Hamilton, Horsham, Mildura, Moe, Morwell, Portland, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Traralgon, Sale, Wangaratta, Warrnambool and Wodonga.
WA: The NWFC 2018 Annual report stated that WA is considering the NWFC recommendation of 1.5 km. In fact, Western Australia's Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage "May 2018 Draft Position Statement: Renewable energy facilities" recommended a 1.5 km setback based on "5.3 Noise Impacts" and that policy is at the point of being finalised. According to their Senior Planning Officer Nick Boegl yesterday, "Position Statement: Renewable Energy Facilities is scheduled to be considered for approval by the Statutory Planning Committee on 10th March 2020."
More info here...https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/state-planning-framework/position-statements/draft-position-statement-on-renewable-energy-facilities

But interestingly and more RELEVANT to the reality of the SA situation are the recommendations provided in the July 2012 Report to the SA Minister for Planning, by the SA DPAC (Development Policy Advisory Committee). After considering some 245 public submissions and verbal testimony at 4 hearings around SA the Committee wrote :

"A policy which embodies a “precautionary approach” is favoured by DPAC. “For this reason, it is considered that, subject to qualification regarding accumulation and height of wind turbines and topography (discussed below), two (2) kilometres could be nominated as the distance by which a wind turbine should be setback from a dwelling to manage visual impacts.” (p.10).

And DPAC were referring to much smaller turbines than are being proposed today. They also said :
"Recommendations:
1. That proposed policy regarding the separation of wind turbines from dwellings be broadened to seek separation from sensitive land uses generally.
2. The proposed policy regarding separation of wind turbines from dwellings be qualified to contemplate greater setbacks where:
• The height of a wind turbine exceeds a certain threshold;
• Wind turbines have accumulated and stand to surround a dwelling; and
• A wind turbine is to be constructed upon a level that is significantly higher than that which a proximate dwelling occupies"

As these were the expert Development Planning Advisory Committee' recommendations for smaller wind turbines in 2012, the current Planning Commission, must reiterate the 2012 recommendations as an absolute minimum.

In summary, the above details strongly support the community view that the proposed 1.2 km setback is not "best practice", equitable or appropriate policy.

In revising the proposed setback the Planning Commission also must consider:
The extensive data collection and peer reviewed published work arising from University of Adelaide and Flinders University research INSIDE dwellings, funded by ARC and NHMRC Grants at wind farms in the Mid North of South Australia.
AND
The research by the Adelaide University School of Mechanical Engineering which explores the physical mechanisms creating measured and perceived increases in noise in locations FAR BEHIND wind turbines:
1. PhD thesis of Dr Nima Sedaghatizadeh - The effect of unsteady flow on wind turbine wake development and noise generation,
and
2. Wind farm noises: Mechanisms and evidence for their dependency on wind direction by Nima Sedaghatizadeh*, Maziar Arjomandi, Benjamin Cazzolato, Richard Kelso , School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Renewable Energy 109 (2017) 311e322
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315595915_Wind_farm_noises_Mechanisms_and_evidence_for_their_dependency_on_wind_direction)

Finally, and most importantly, because these are the people that the planning regulations are designed to protect, the Commission must give considerable weight to the life experience of residents who have had problem wind farms sited in their local environment - because it is the proximate residents who are subject to the ultimate test of whether the planning policy is working properly to protect the amenity of the community.

Current policy is failing that test and the proposed 1.2 km setback will also fail.

Setback distances between rural dwellings and proposed wind turbines must be reviewed and significantly increased.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Mary Morris

28 Feb 2020

Hi Mary,

Thank you for your feedback, we have passed it on to our planning team.

Cheers, DPTI Planning Engagement

Peter Holmes

25 Feb 2020

I understood that the Code implementation date is now being changed as a result of a Bill before Parliament initiated by Mark Parnell/the Greens?

If so, what date, and therefore why isn't the public consultation period similarly being extended

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Peter Holmes

27 Feb 2020

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your query. Details about the extension of the new planning system timeframes can be found on the SA Planning Portal. We can’t embed a clickable link in this comment function however if you visit the Portal at www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au and view the rotating banner at the top, there is a banner which links to a page with all of the information and the Minister for Planning’s media release.

The announcement of the Minister for Planning’s intention to enable the new planning system timeframes to be extended will not result in a further period of consultation on the draft Planning and Design Code. The Code has already had an extensive period of consultation – Phase Two has already closed and Phase Three will be closing at midnight on 28 February 2020.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Peter Holmes

27 Feb 2020

Hi again Peter,

In the absence of an embedded link for more info, we can confirm that the expected implementation dates are now July for rural areas (Phase Two) and September for urban areas (Phase Three), with the actual dates still to be determined by the Minister for Planning. The extension of time will enable people to see and experience the Code and ePlanning system together before it is implemented to build confidence and comfort in the new planning system.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Mike Amen

24 Feb 2020

Why do you have a website where we can have our say, yet you are not responding to our questions?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Mike Amen

27 Feb 2020

Hi Mike,

We sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to the questions being raised on this platform. So far this consultation has received in excess of 1,000 public enquiries and we are working to respond to enquiries as well as to have our planners assist when the response requires planning policy advice.

We note your reply with regards to setback and we are working to respond to you as soon as possible.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Mike Amen

01 Feb 2020

Hello. With regard to the 1.2km setback for rural dwelling from wind turbines, how was this distance determined?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Mike Amen

27 Feb 2020

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your enquiry relating to setbacks from wind turbines in the new planning system, and apologies again for the delay in response.

The figure of 1.2km is based on best practice, recent assessment data and operation projects. Many of the eastern states have created planning guidelines for renewables which have assisted us in determining what are appropriate set back distances.

Light Regional Council is covered by several zones under the draft Planning and Design Code. We can send you a link directly to the PD Code extract for Light Regional Council however unfortunately we can't embed a link using this comments function. If you would like to email us at PlanningReform@sa.gov.au we can reply to your email with a link directly to the PD Code extract for Light Regional Council.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Mike Amen

01 Feb 2020

Hello. Can you please tell me if all of Light Regional Council is classified as Peri-Urban?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Mike Amen

27 Feb 2020

Hi Mike,

Light Regional Council is covered by several zones under the draft Planning and Design Code. We can send you a link directly to the PD Code extract for Light Regional Council however unfortunately we can't embed a link using this comments function. If you would like to email us at PlanningReform@sa.gov.au we can reply to your email with a link directly to the PD Code extract for Light Regional Council.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Sarah Macdonald

28 Jan 2020

any new construction should have; adequate parking, include solar panels, rainwater storage, adequate insulation and any exturnal roof or paving should be light coloured (to reflect sunlight)
we need to stop creeping over our remaining green spaces, particularily agricultural lands, which means we need to build for higher density living.
our councils need to be answerable for the quality of any construction they allow.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Sarah Macdonald

27 Feb 2020

Hi Sarah,
Thank you for your feedback.
Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Caroline Lloyd

28 Jan 2020

I've skim read the documents with more attention to the suburban sections and there are plenty of grand sounding motherhood statements ....
Does this cover all building? For example, if I want to build a new shed / studio in my suburban backyard would I use the new portal or will that still be reviewed and decided by council? What rules apply to that?
If my neighbours decide to subdivide and I think their development will block my view/sunlight etc what / how do I object?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Caroline Lloyd

25 Feb 2020

Dear Caroline,

Thank you for your comment regarding the implementation of the new planning system.

The new planning system covers the whole state and all types of development. The details of the shed (height, length, location, siting on land, materials etc) generally determines if it requires assessment. For a use as a shed, Council would generally be the relevant authority. Once the new planning system is fully in affect, applications will still be able to be lodged with Council and via the SA Planning Portal (this feature has not been implemented yet).

With regards to land division on adjoining properties, the extent of the new dwelling(s) and its building height, setbacks from side/rear/front boundaries, will determine the assessment path and the requirement for neighbouring properties to be notified. Objecting to a development application is also dependent on the finer details. In the new planning system, there are several types of assessment processes based on the type of development. The most common pathways are Code Assessed where the applicant can appeal and Impact Based Assessment where both the applicant and a third party representor can appeal the decisions. However, these processes are dependent on the scale of the development, its location and the finer detail as outlined above.

We apologise for the delay in our response to your enquiry and hope this information is of assistance.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

Hamish van den IJseel

27 Jan 2020

Our streets recent experience with a developers successful proposal to Subdivide and then build 2 x 2story semidetached against numerous Mitchum council development guidelines left residents in the street feeling unrepresented. Subsequent complaint by residents to the council were responded with deflections to the state government and saying they had no control and this legislation would only make it worse. Our local MP directed us to Mitcham council or Stephen Knoll.

Everyone seems to think it’s a travesty that 1930 Tudor style houses are demolished. Pity all our representatives blame someone for one for it.

This legislation seems strongly in favour of developers.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Hamish van den IJseel

25 Feb 2020

Dear Hamish,

Thank you for your comment regarding the demolition of properties within the Mitcham Council Area. Without the address it is difficult to provide a more substantive response.

Please contact us on our Planning and Design Code Hotline 1800 318 102 and we will be able to discuss this in more detail.

Apologies for the time taken to respond to your enquiry.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Brendon Madey

27 Feb 2020

Hi Brendon,

Thank you for your comments regarding the Planning and Design Code.

The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has been working closely with Councils throughout the course of the planning reform program. The new planning system includes additional consultation mechanisms and with the guidance of the Community Engagement Charter, it is intended that the new system will be more transparent and with more opportunities for communities to get involved in the policy making processes.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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"?

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Peter Holmes

25 Feb 2020

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Design in the new planning system. While design is a critical inclusion in the new planning system and the Planning and Design Code, the State Planning Policies outline the key design principles considered when drafting the Code. The SPPs outline matters of importance to the state in land use planning, development and design.

I refer your attention to State Planning Policy 2 – Design Quality (page 30) which outlines what the Objectives, Policies and Principles are for Design in our new planning system. This document can be found on the SA Planning Portal, at www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/planning_reforms/new_planning_tools/state_planning_policies

The SPP includes the Principles of Good Design and Principles of Universal Design. These provide the background and direction for design in our new planning system.

We apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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.

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

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Paul Thomas

25 Feb 2020

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your query regarding the consideration of ‘Tiny Houses’ in the new planning system. Affordable Housing, including small lot development is a consideration in the new planning system with its key policy document, the State Planning Policies recognising this as a key priority. The recognition of such dwellings is also represented in the Code through the inclusion of broader policy to support a more diverse range of housing choices and lot sizes across both metropolitan Adelaide and our regions.

We apologise for the delay in response.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Peter Kuhlmann

25 Feb 2020

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your query regarding the consideration of Affordable Housing choices in the new planning system. Affordable Housing, including small lot development is a consideration in the new planning system with its key policy document, the State Planning Policies recognising this as a key priority. The recognition of such dwellings is also represented in the Code through the inclusion of broader policy to support a more diverse range of housing choices and lot sizes across both metropolitan Adelaide and our regions.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Michelle Jahn

25 Feb 2020

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your query regarding the consideration of ‘Tiny Houses’ in the new planning system. Affordable Housing, including small lot development is a consideration in the new planning system with its key policy document, the State Planning Policies recognising this as a key priority. The recognition of such dwellings is also represented in the Code through the inclusion of broader policy to support a more diverse range of housing choices and lot sizes across both metropolitan Adelaide and our regions.

A tiny house on wheels (THROW) would not generally necessitate the need for approval as it would be considered in the same realm as a caravan. However, if it was a permanent structure which required mains water, electricity, sewer etc, it could be considered a dwelling. If there was already a dwelling on said allotment, a THROW may be considered to be a second dwelling and therefore subject to the regular planning processes.

We apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Kym McKay

27 Feb 2020

Hi Kym,
Thank you for your feedback.
Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Christel Mex

27 Feb 2020

Hi Christel,
Thank you for your feedback.
Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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.

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.

Rob Mair > Rob Mair

24 Feb 2020

A very poor time line with no genuine response from the team in this South Australian Government Dept. I really feel sad that this site is really just a dead fish not swimming. I wonder if the Minister knows about this very shabby performance.

Government Agency

DPTI Planning Engagement > Rob Mair

25 Feb 2020

Dear Rob,

Thank you for your query regarding the consideration of ‘Tiny Houses’ in the new planning system. Affordable Housing, including small lot development is a consideration in the new planning system with its key policy document, the State Planning Policies recognising this as a key priority. The recognition of such dwellings is also represented in the Code through the inclusion of broader policy to support a more diverse range of housing choices and lot sizes across both metropolitan Adelaide and our regions.

A tiny house on wheels (THROW) would not generally necessitate the need for approval as it would be considered in the same realm as a caravan. However, if it was a permanent structure which required mains water, electricity, sewer etc, it could be considered a dwelling. If there was already a dwelling on said allotment, a THROW may be considered to be a second dwelling and therefore subject to the regular planning processes.

Once again we apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry.

Kind Regards, DPTI Planning Engagement Team

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