How can our new planning policy better support South Australia’s economy?

Read the Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper or the Summary and join the discussion below.

Leave a comment

Michael Tunnah

20 Feb 2019

Opening our National Parks to private development is a disgrace. National parks belong to the people: now and for the future. Please preserve our parks and wilderness area so they can be enjoyed by everyone.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Catherine Murphy

20 Feb 2019

I sincerely protest the need to change South Australia's planning laws to permit commercial development on land set aside in 1918 by visionary leaders who believed in the future. This included their belief in the need, all South Australians (then and now have), for quiet reflection and rejuvenation in wilderness areas, contrasting so sharply with Metro. 100 years since Flinders Chase was declared a National Park, the need for people to find peace within wilderness areas is even greater. Yet our less than visionary current leaders are eagerly lining up to hand over our precious inheritance to developers whose only drive is to make money from those paying top prices for the privilege of luxury accommodation in wilderness areas, to the exclusion of the majority. This is theft, this is an illustration of the decline of standards in leaders who rule not for the majority, but for those with whom they exchange coin. This could never be described as a productive economy, but rather an unsustainable economy bent on destruction of precious resources which can never be regained once lost, gone forever. A short-sighted economy of mindlessness.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

James Beagle

18 Feb 2019

Ask yourself this, what effects will new developments have on the ecosystems and environments of these regions? How will we make up for the countless ecosystem services lost through the development of these environments? What will the long terms effects be on these regions, and for that matter how will these destructive impacts on the environment effect eco-tourism itself if our environments become too overdeveloped and fragmented? How will this new policy fall in line with the obvious effects of climate change and the long-term survival of regions like Kangaroo Island? I urge that we please do not make the same mistake that has been made countless times before in history. We need to preserve our parks and wilderness areas. Not only are they important for us as humans, but without them we must ask ourselves, how much more then money will we be paying if we continue down the same pathway of ignorance and greed. Where, for that matter, will our future be?

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Tim Reynolds

18 Feb 2019

The Paper overlooks the effect of climate change on natural ecosystems - e.g. “pristine areas” - which provide critical ecosystem services that underpin our economic prosperity and social wellbeing. How will this policy framework be reconciled with the SA Government Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan (2018) for example?

These “pristine areas” mostly occur within the State’s Protected Area System where infrastructure development for commercial gain contravenes the fundamental tenet of natural asset protection. Many natural ecosystems across southern Australia are already stressed by changing climate and a range of other factors, as evidenced by the general decline in bird populations - at least one species has already become extinct in SA from its last stronghold in a “pristine area”. Effective climate adaptation will involve building resilience in ecological systems to stress or environmental change and the capacity to adapt. “Eco-tourism” commercial development will impose a new stressor on native ecosystems already struggling to cope with climate change. The true cost of managing these risks is likely to outweigh any potential commercial benefits. Globally, true wilderness is a rapidly diminishing commodity, and “eco-tourism” development is a well recognised threat.

Is this Paper genuine consultation, or an attempt to manufacture consent for decisions already made? For example, on p27 the wording “A policy response will be particularly important to support eco-tourism in our more pristine areas”. Here we have in the same sentence, the announcement of a contentious new policy and the call for a policy response to legitimise it – with no social consent, nor sustainability argument to support it.

The protection and appropriate “use” of the State’s “pristine areas” needs to be informed by science, not economic ideology. These “pristine areas” are not just sitting there idly, doing nothing – they are in fact providing valuable ecosystem services for the economy, and are thus a critical natural asset requiring the highest level of protection, not commercial exploitation, green-washed as “eco-tourism”.

The discussion of land for new housing and industries centres on maintaining an “efficient pipeline of land supply” linked to projected population and economic growth. Yes, it admits land use planning must also be “mindful” of environmental concerns, but it is hard to see how the new system will be ecologically sustainable. Annual “land consumption” rates for urban development are discussed, but the full ecological footprint ignored. Australia ranks as the country with the 6th highest ecological footprint in the world, at 6.6 global hectares per person (EPA, Victoria). Urban growth will place demand on supply of natural resources that are both finite and diminishing, not just land. Of most concern is the diminishing supply of potable water and arable land in our rapidly drying climate. Any incremental improvements in food production or water conservation - to meet the demands of growth - will quickly be eroded by further growth. In the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2019 “failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation” was voted in the top two in terms of impact this year. This Paper appears to echo that failure.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Bernard Stonor

16 Feb 2019

Commercial development in national parks is not Eco tourism it is simply vandalism. National parks are just that, and the declaring of a national park is to protect its uniqueness and allow access to all, not for a few developers to make money from.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Prue Coulls

15 Feb 2019

I would like to see our State Government recognise the value of our Parks and Reserves NOT for short term economic gain but for the protection of our (Kangaroo Island and the World's) wild places. I would like to join the huge number of people who object to the sale of these places to the highest bidder and for the use of the privileged few.
Wild places once lost can NEVER be regained. Perhaps it doesn't matter that future tourism to Kangaroo Island will be about food and wine rather than attracting those who want to see our abundant wildlife and our extraordinary wild places. Perhaps it won't matter to tourism (although I suspect it will) but it WILL matter to future generations and to the health of our environment.
I would also like to remind everyone, as an example, that Flinders Chase was declared as a National Park in 1919 - one hundred years ago - after 30 years of lobbying (what dedication and what foresight). Why did a group of people in the 1890's want to create a Sanctuary? To preserve our flora and fauna, to create a HEALTH retreat and to conserve it for future generations. What a shame that this generation of politicians do not have the foresight to see the value of this and other Parks and Reserves other than in monetary terms.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Martin

15 Feb 2019

Considering the decision in favour of the KI golf course development went in favour of the 5 submissions that supported it, and against the 712 which opposed it, one has to wonder if web sites like YourSAy are even looked at by the government, let alone taken seriously.

The so-called Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper needs to be recognised for what it is - yet another product of the disastrously misguided economic dogma of neoliberalism that gained ascendency in the 1980s. The result of that dogma has been increasing inequality, undermining of the commons, immense environmental damage at local and global scales, and a level of fiscal irresponsibility that is breathtaking. This is how the government is able to see our environment department as ‘an economic development agency’.

Instead of taking on board the extensive international criticism of this deeply inadequate economic and social ideology, and seeking other ways forward, the new liberal government seems to be in a hurry to have its turn at applying this inept and destructive ideology while it still has the chance.

However, it is one thing to sit back and allow the cost of housing to drift beyond the means of younger people, or to allow multi-million bonuses to complicit bank executives, or to oversee the sell-off of extensive public assets without a dialogue with the public who actually own them. Both sides of politics have been guilty of this mismanagement, and to the benefit of a relative few.

But it is quite another to start bulldozing parts of our national park system in the name of economic profit, creating exclusive places within them that only the better-off can afford. Instead of continually reducing the budget of our environment department, and then directing our national park managers to make up the money by ‘development’, we should be investing heavily in a capacity to scientifically assess, record and protect their ecology. We should be building public understanding of their qualities and importance, and fostering a sense of collective stewardship for posterity.

Bulldozing parts of the park to create access roads and luxury accommodation for wealthy visitors has to be an utter abrogation by the government of its true responsibilities in our park system. Our priority should be to fully protect these areas, not to damage them in the name of discredited, philistine dogmas of economic mismanagement. If it can’t actually sell off our national parks and reserves, the government now seems determined to privatise the best bits. Too bad if the locals can't afford to join

Whom exactly does the government think it is representing in pressing ahead with this? Dare it ask the public? Does it even care what the public thinks? Or in its echo chamber of Deloitte reports, corporate investment strategies and the goal of endless and mindless GDP growth, does it actually believe in what it's doing in our parks? If it does, Lord help us, our children and the park system.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Peter Martin

19 Feb 2019

Thanks for your comments Peter. Through this paper the Commission is seeking a wide range of viewpoints and ideas from across the community about how we can best guide how land is used across South Australia. In that context, any ideas you may have on how the policy recommendations in the paper might need to be changed to reflect your viewpoints are welcomed by the Commission.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

John Matheson

15 Feb 2019

Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 conservation parks are for conservation, not private economic development. The Flinders Chase National Parks's management plan as amended 2017 is already in conflict with the Act and no doubt other parks business plans are as well. Despite this there is significant pressure from a minority to allow development that is not compliant with the intention of the business plan and therefore even further in conflict with the act! Any changes to policy should be to revoke private development from parks business plans and restore parks to the purpose intended in the Act. Preserving relatively untouched spaces is more critical than ever as worldwide humanity is destroying biodiversity and bulldozing Planet Earth into its sixth mass extinction event in 4.5 billion years.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > John Matheson

19 Feb 2019

Hi John, please see the discussion below for further details of the role of the planning system and the Commission in regard to these issues.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Graham Churchett

15 Feb 2019

My correspondence below to Minister Spears re the Australian Government Productivity Commission Tourism report and its understanding of Pristine Areas.

3rd February 2019

Minister Speirs,
It is a sad day when a Minister of the Crown condones and openly supports the destruction of coastal wilderness and in particular the proposed Flinders Chase private development in a location that has no man made structures and is one of few places left where one can view and experience this precious landscape much as it was seen before European settlement. If you can't see or understand that this is an incredibly precious asset to be protected then you make mockery of the ethic of the portfolio you have been entrusted with on behalf of the people of South Australia.
This proposed development does not conform with the park's Management Plan and would be an ecological disgrace if approved at this site. Remote areas of pristine value must be protected and we need governments with the understanding and courage to see that they remain so for future generations and that the ecological integrity remains preserved. I would strongly advocate that a register of Pristine Areas be established so that such areas may be preserved in perpetuity.

I note that Australian Government Productivity Commission Tourism report states

"A policy response will be particularly important to support eco-tourism in our more pristine areas. Nature-based tourism is a significant growth area for our state and managing development activities within these locations (such as Kangaroo Island and the Eyre Peninsula) requires a level of policy reform to create a more enabling environment."

Allowing developments as stated in the report in pristine areas is folly and unacceptable. Such actions demean the very concept of the worth and beauty of pristine sites.
It also reflects on the authors of the report and demonstrates their total lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "Pristine".
Meaning from my dictionary -
Pristine - "in its original condition; unspoiled :  clean and fresh as if new; spotless :

I  have purchased land on Kangaroo Island which is now covered under a Heritage Agreement and Sanctuary under the National Parks & Wildlife Act so as to help to protect our flora and fauna plus conducted self funded research on this area and have been an active Friends Group member teaching school children, managing feral animal control and revegetation work for 30 plus years in a number of areas in South Australia and it grieves and angers me when selfish endeavours try to destroy what remains of our planet's precious few unspoilt places.

For many years I was employed as a tour guide on Kangaroo Island and in the Flinders Ranges and guided groups in an along this part of Kangaroo Island's coastline.
A constant group comment was , "please don't let them change this serene and beautiful area."
To support my guests sentiments I too urge you to resist the external pressures from developers and instead adopt the concept of preservation, not desecration.

Graham Churchett

Nature Based Services

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Graham Churchett

19 Feb 2019

Thanks Graham. Please see the responses to comments from Carole, Mishka, Sue and S Petit (below) for some further context on the role of the State Planning Commission, and for planning policy more generally on issues regarding development in the environmentally sensitive areas of our state.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Heather Hill

14 Feb 2019

I note that in the summary paper at 1M. it proposes "protection of mineral sources from incompatible development''. I would prefer to see the protection of pristine natural resources such as the state's national parks. Tourists visit SA to see some of the last wild places where native species are protected, and building large accommodation buildings in pristine bush will discourage tourists rather than encourage them.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Heather Hill

19 Feb 2019

Hi Heather, planning policy issues related to the protection of our biologically sensitive environments are discussed at length in the Natural Resources and Environment Paper. Please refer to that paper for further details.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Scott McDonald

12 Feb 2019

The question is, is supporting the economy the only, or the main, role of planning policy?
I believe that a major role of planning policy lies in its ability to protect the land and the people from unsustainable, unnecessary, intrusive, and poorly planned developments. It should NOT be, in my opinion, a tool of economic development.
The current State Government has introduced several concepts it seeks to use Planning Policy to implement against the wishes of the public and the advice of learned environmentalists, simply for the income it believes may be achieved. This is neither good planning nor good governance.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Scott McDonald

19 Feb 2019

Scott, the Commission is very much aware of the multitude of roles that policy and the planning system more generally, plays in shaping the state's future. As noted below, the Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series, including papers on Integrated Movement Systems, Natural Resources and Environment, and People and Neighbourhoods (to be released in coming months). By grouping the papers in this way, the Commission has sought to examine policy that is closely related by theme, while acknowledging that many planning policies are interlinked across themes.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Sara Hourez

07 Feb 2019

The Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper is more about getting permission to plunder public lands for commercial-in-confidence private developers. And if we don't give our support, it doesn't really matter anyway because any response at all can be placed in the 'community consultation' bucket and subsequently ticked and ignored. I don't even think there has ever been any intention of considering community views submitted to the Your Say space. I refer to my last submission which joined some 712 others against the sale or lease of crown coastal land next to the KI Links Golf Course development and the five in support. Guess what decision was made? Investigative journalists out there - and if you still exist - get on to this and expose this process for the sham it is and help protect our already fragile future.

Scott McDonald > Sara Hourez

12 Feb 2019

Sara has nailed this.....I will continue to have a say, knowing that it will make no difference to the end result.....the arrogance and self-centeredness of our politicians is breathtaking.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Sara Hourez

19 Feb 2019

Thanks Sara. In developing the various components of the new planning system, the State Planning Commission is bound by the principles of the Community Engagement Charter to engage with and consult the broader community. Given the size of the transformation at hand, that exercise can be quite a challenging one, particularly given the variety of feedback and viewpoints that are received. We are doing our best to ensure all of those views are heard, given due consideration and genuinely responded to.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Maggie Welz

06 Feb 2019

Keeping Wilderness wild as an economic drawcard where such areas are dwindling at an alarming rate would be a start. Stop the inappropriate development in Flinders Chase National Park Kangaroo Island and go back to the limited application for small scale cabins. Don't destroy the reason people come to the island

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Maggie Welz

15 Feb 2019

Hi Maggie, thanks for submitting your comments. Please note however that the Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper is an initiative of the State Planning Commission, and deals with what planning policy should look like in the new planning system. Proposals within a National Park (such as the example you've mentioned) are managed by, and are the responsibility of the Department for Environment and Water.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

S Petit

05 Feb 2019

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper”. It was good to read on p. 5 that “The new system will support and enhance the state’s liveability and prosperity in ways that are ecologically sustainable…”. Ecological sustainability is indeed central to our survival and wellbeing. How many ecologists are involved in the design of the Code? If none, then I suggest involving a panel of independent ecologists to contribute to the Code, so that ecological sustainability be driven by people who are professionals in the field.

I was very concerned to read “A policy response will be particularly important to support eco-tourism in our more pristine areas. Nature-based tourism is a significant growth area for our state and managing development activities within these locations (such as Kangaroo Island and the Eyre Peninsula) requires a level of policy reform to create a more enabling environment.” It sounds as if planning laws will be changed to allow various “developments” (constructions, roads, golf courses, etc) in our parks and reserves. It is unacceptable. Protected areas should remain PROTECTED. They are protected to sustain fragile biodiversity, ecosystem functions, landscapes, natural resources, geological features, coastal protection, but also our health and wellbeing, lifestyle, spirituality, awe, resilience, and more. By definition, pristine areas are no longer pristine if affected by developments. Tourists come from all over the planet to experience wilderness areas on Kangaroo Island, for example, because pristine coastal areas have disappeared from most of the rest of the world. The wilderness areas of South Australia are gifts that keep on giving; they are unique and invaluable. Allowing private developers to take over our parks and reserves with any permanent structure would mark the end of our progressive civilisation, which understand the need for conservation. Not everything should be sold; even economists should understand that. Nature belongs to all. The long-term dollar value of leaving a protected areas protected is many orders of magnitude greater than that generated by a developer in that area; it is not even in the realm of comparisons.

Your paper mentions the intensification of cities and “liveability” but wellbeing is not mentioned once, and health is only mentioned as an economic service. It seems to me that planning should be greatly concerned about wellbeing – are we not planning to be well? Green spaces in urban environments are not mentioned either, yet they are associated with health and wellbeing, based on numerous scientific papers. Social scientists with expertise in wellbeing should be members of your Code development panel. Green roofs are not mentioned once, yet they can provide wellbeing, biodiversity refuges, food production areas, and heat control. Similarly, the protection of amenities, air flow, natural light, solar panels, passive heating and cooling should be part of a modern planning code. Neighbours building random structures that affect others result in much distress and energy waste.

Your discussion paper mentions growth many times. However, it never once mentions shrinking. It is of course a less attractive concept, but shouldn’t planning plan for the inevitable? The earth is a closed system and matter resources are finite, which is why by 1 August in 2018, humans had exhausted more of the earth’s resources than could be regenerated that year. We are using 1.7 planets (Global Footprint Network) yet have only one. The earth is overpopulated and we use too many resources, so growth will stop, whether we want it or not. In what condition will humans and the earth be then? We are already seeing devastating effects of climate change, pollution, loss of water quality, sea acidification, etc. We must shrink or die. So a planning paper should discuss shrinking and describe what shrinking may look like, or accept that we are growing to death. It should present demographic models in the context of carrying capacity so that planning may be informed by science and may protect us and our environment.

Your statement “Land use planning generally, and the Code in particular, must adapt to increasing exploration and production in the energy and resources industries, while also being mindful of environmental concerns” seems to indicate that we must mine more and faster. Once these mining resources are gone, they will not be regenerated, since the earth is a closed system. We must not only be “mindful of environmental concerns” but more determined to protect the natural environment and understand that mining pace also needs to be planned very carefully.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > S Petit

19 Feb 2019

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. All elements and tools within South Australia’s new planning system, including the Code involve a range of experts from disciplines other than planning. Those interests are represented not only by those individuals but by the Department of Environment and Water, the Environment Protection Authority, Natural Resources Management Boards, Water Sensitive SA, the Coast Protection Board, the Premier’s Climate Change Council, the Native Vegetation Council and several other representative bodies including the Minister’s Community Participation and Sustainability Advisory Committee.

The concerns you raise regarding planning policy for development in the ecologically important areas of South Australia are noted. Please see the responses to comments from Carole, Mishka and Sue (below) for further context as to how the Commission has attempted to frame those issues in the paper and how our current, outdated suite of policies might be improved through this process.

Community wellbeing is indeed part of a holistic approach to planning. The planning system can be used as an enabler to help achieve sustainability, prosperity and liveability – all critical components of community wellbeing. However the planning system alone cannot achieve these outcomes in isolation. It’s important to note that the Productive Economy Discussion Paper is part of a series of themed-discussion papers published by the Commission, and that the matters you’ve raised are discussed in further detail in the Natural Resources and Environment and the (soon to be released) People and Neighbourhoods Policy Discussion Papers.

Your concerns regarding carrying capacity are noted. The Commission’s mandate and the objects of our planning system as defined by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, are to make use of the latest trends, projections and expert analysis to plan for, and cater to the growth expected for both population and investment in South Australia. Whilst the setting of policy can influence how this growth occurs, it must be informed – and ground-truthed against – the best evidence available at the time.

As noted in response to Sue’s comment, the planning system has a complex relationship with the regulation of mining activities in South Australia, since they are governed by separate legislation. The statement around the need for policy adaptation (balanced with the need to ensure environmental protection) is, in part a recognition of the complex relationship, and of the ongoing need for planning policies to be responsive to emerging energy and resources industries, particularly with reference to how changing technology might affect how these kinds of projects manifest themselves on land into the future.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Ria Byass

05 Feb 2019

I am extremely concerned about the phrase..to create a more enabling environment for developers... to have free reign in National Parks that should be protected for the next generations. These wild places will only increase in value. There are more currencies than cash.
This policy response proposal shows a lack of leadership and a high level of greed and irresponsibility.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Ria Byass

15 Feb 2019

Your comments are certainly noted Ria. As discussed in other responses below, this is an area of policy the State Planning Commission is acutely aware of, especially of the importance of ensuring the right policy safeguards are put in place to protect areas of high environmental significance around the state from incompatible development.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Sue Vincent

05 Feb 2019

I am extremely concerned about elements of this proposal but two in particular:
1. The paragraph:
There are three types of commodities ... and fuels (gas, petroleum). Ongoing resource exploration and development
of these resources is vital to the delivery of employment, infrastructure, skills and prosperity to the state.

Climate change is a real threat and most of the known fossil fuel reserves should remain in the ground to stay within the globally recognised IPCC 2C (1.5C) target. As such SA should not consider further exploration for gas/oil as part of its future economy and least of all exploration in the pristine Bight. No further licenses to explore this area should be granted and existing licenses should be revoked immediately. Big international companies (eg equinor formerly Statoil) with their expat / fly in fly out workforces, limited local / community investment, poor HSE record and profit before ethics mentality should be actively discouraged.

2. Nature-based tourism is
a significant growth area for our state and managing development activities within these locations (such as Kangaroo Island and
the Eyre Peninsula) requires a level of policy reform to create
a more enabling environment.

This last sentence infers that planning conditions should be relaxed to allow developers free reign with their proposals even though they often lead to the destruction of habitats, ecosystems and amenity. Construction unsympathetic to its surroundings. To maintain the nature required for “nature based” tourism, the opposite is required - smarter, more restricted and cautious development. Policy should look at how to protect and preserve to add value not from “developments” but by other means for example, entry fees (as per Galapagos) or visitor levys and unique experiences.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Sue Vincent

15 Feb 2019

Thanks Sue. In response to your first concern, mining activities have a very complex relationship with the planning system in that a separate piece of legislation (the Mining Act 1971) governs the licensing and operational requirements of mining-related activities. That said, planning policies can have some influence over how and where mining-related operations and activities are established (such as rail facilities, transport depots, certain machinery and plant, workers' accommodation, dams and water infrastructure, electricity and gas services), so planning still plays an important part of the overall picture. Notwithstanding that, your comments regarding climate change impacts in particular, are noted.

Regarding point number 2; the Commission places a very high priority on getting the right planning policy environment in place through the new system to ensure that design considerations are given a higher level of importance during the assessment process, especially with regard to proposals within environmentally sensitive or important areas. The Commission is welcoming of any ideas for the new planning system tools and instruments that can be used to achieve improved development outcomes.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Mishka Ammann

04 Feb 2019

In regard to the statement:

"A policy response will be particularly important to support eco-tourism in our more pristine areas. Nature-based tourism is a significant growth area for our state and managing development activities within these locations (such as Kangaroo Island and the Eyre Peninsula) requires a level of policy reform to create a more enabling environment".

While proper consultation will be an improvement, especially in regard to Category One proposals, there exists an intrinsic conflict between tourism and protecting our pristine wilderness areas. Beautiful places like Kangaroo island have many places and opportunities to promote eco-tourism on private land or in areas that need restoration. National Parks, being public land, should be about protecting the environment and the habitat of endangered species. If we 'enable' intrusive infrastructure to go ahead in our National Parks we ironically pollute the very wilderness people come to enjoy. Tourism SA says Kangaroo Island is a place of "unmistakable sanctity". The coastline, cliffs and beaches, and our unspoiled areas in National Parks must remain pristine for future generations. National Parks were established to protect our natural heritage and when we consider their economic potential, before their preservation and intrinsic value to the planet, we are beginning with the wrong premise.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Mishka Ammann

15 Feb 2019

Mishka, it is true that areas of high environmental significance will continue to be of importance to all South Australians into the future, and the planning system needs to reflect that. The Commission is acutely aware of the need to get the balance right between areas of potential policy conflict such as the example you've used. Through the discussion papers, the Commission has been seeking to explore how our future planning system might best be able to accommodate certain development opportunities in a range of places, with the right safeguards in place to ensure impacts are managed or mitigated. Equally, the planning system will contain the tools necessary to deem certain types of development as 'restricted' or otherwise inappropriate in certain areas. Getting the balance right on this area of policy is critical. One of the jobs of the planning system in this respect is to anticipate how applicants might seek to use land and have a suitable suite of policies ready to guide the assessment process once an application has been received. As for development within National Parks and other state-owned lands, the relevant Minister is responsible for making the final decision whether to allow these uses if a planning approval is granted.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Kerry Manthorpe

02 Feb 2019

SA relies mainly on Fishing, Agriculture, Mining, Manufacturing and Tourism industries which generate high income but also have high ecological and environmental impacts.
The battle between economic & environmental sustainability planning can be limited by creating an Industrial Hemp industry (Not Marijuana) in SA. These Multi Billion Dollar industries can use environmentally safe products and practices to manufacture Non-Toxic and Biodegradable food, medicine, bioplastics, packaging, cosmetics, diesel fuel, paints, detergents, inks, oil, textiles, biofuel, building materials, insulation, clothing, paper, rope, livestock feed, etc.
Hemp Industry income can then be used to increase exports, improve transport and infrastructure, create employment and creates an economic buffer during times of failure in other sectors.

Building planning must include more emphasis on sustainability with passive design, water and energy conservation and the use of natural, non-toxic, biodegradable, sustainable, recyclable materials.
While the Australian dream is a single family home on an acre block, we can’t continue to use huge areas of productive farming land for housing. Urban Development must go up while creating parks and outdoor community living areas to improve social inclusion and economy of scale.

Any development within National Parks must be minimized and meet stringent eoclogical and environmental sustainability criteria. Farmers surrounding National Parks could be encouraged to diversify into tourist accommodation to (drought proof (protect farm income reliability) and minimize the tourism impact on parks.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Kerry Manthorpe

14 Feb 2019

Thanks Kerry, certainly some food for thought there in relation to the incentivisation of new industries, increasing the sustainability of our built footprint and protection of our valued areas of high environmental importance. Each of the industries and issues you've raised can have certain impacts on the way we use land throughout SA and that's where the planning system can have the most influence. Through the process of releasing these papers for discussion, the Commission hopes to elevate the conversation around planning to a forward-thinking exercise on how we should design planning policy and process into the future. Thank you for your contribution to how we might design our system better into the future.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Lester Trotter

01 Feb 2019

With the proposed changes announced by Minister David Speirs with regards to the DEW structure, and staffing levels, and having been a Volunteer for the past 16 years as a member of a Friends of The Parks group, and witnessing the decline in resources in the maintenance of our park by consecutive governments, this last announcement by the minister has made me review my commitment to my volunteering, and i will be giving serious consideration to terminating my time, and financial resources which is not inconsiderable seeing that i use my vehicle towing our groups work trailer every week, at an average distance approx 80 kilometers to, and in the park all at my personnel expense. Have a good day.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Lester Trotter

14 Feb 2019

Thanks Lester. Given that this page has been set up as a forum to discuss the content of the State Planning Commission's Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper, we would encourage you to get in touch with the Department of Environment and Water, Minister Speirs' office or your local member of parliament. They may be able to provide you with further details and to discuss your concerns directly.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Carole Pinnock

27 Jan 2019

It seems to me that there can be a conflict between these policies eg the Natural Resources and Environment Policy Discussion Paper states "Theme 4: Coastal Environments..
It is important to have planning policies in place to protect: • habitats that are highly sensitive to the direct impacts of development • important geological and/ or natural features of scientific, educational or cultural importance • landscapes of very high scenic quality".

Now in the current Productive Economy paper - Theme 1 Supporting key Industries, Tourism states ..."A policy response will be particularly important to support eco-tourism in our more pristine areas. Nature-based tourism is a significant growth area for our state and managing development activities within these locations (such as Kangaroo Island and the Eyre Peninsula) requires a level of policy reform to create a more enabling environment".
The example of Kangaroo Island is apt because such a conflict has indeed arisen concerning a private development in a National Park. There seems to be no process which can mediate a solution between the conflicting interests. In fact the reverse exists, as the developer was not required to consult during the concept development phase with key user groups ie the local community and volunteer conservation workers. If this consultation shortcut is repeated in other conservation areas and National Parks, then it may lead to an atmosphere of constant conflict and opposition - the very opposite of what is needed.
An example of where successful eco-tourism developments can occur is the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail itself. This was developed with wide and genuine consultation, and the result is a highly popular tourist attraction which benefits local businesses including a number of ecotourism providers. It attracts walkers from all over the world and is supported by the local community and volunteers. The difference is in the process. It is important that an effective development process including consultation is built into the policy.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Carole Pinnock

14 Feb 2019

Carole, the issue of managing conflicts is a particularly important one, thank you for raising this. It is true that conflicts between planning policies can occasionally arise and that a test of the effectiveness of a planning system can come down to how well the assessment process seeks to manage these conflicts. The conflicts inherent in the examples you've given provide pause for thought on; (1) How important context is in the assessment of a development proposal, and: (2) How planning authorities should best seek to make balanced decisions based on the merits of a proposal against the policy in place at any given time. We anticipate that the 'Performance-Assessed' pathway for planning applications under the new system will allow applications with a higher complexity level to be assessed with the intent of achieving development outcomes which can more successfully balance concerns, manage conflicts and achieve a better community outcome overall. Thanks again for your contribution.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Rosy Centrella

20 Jan 2019

The Environment needs to be a priority with all new developments. This is a major area which Australia falls behind. We can be innovative, forward thinking, strategic to ensure all development are environmentally sound. We cannot continue to ignore this pressing issue. Adelaide can lead the way in Australia as the most liveable city, ticking all the boxes.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Rosy Centrella

14 Feb 2019

Thank you Rosy, the State Planning Commission shares your enthusiasm for placing issues of environmental sustainability at the forefront of our state's new planning system. This paper endeavours to discuss the importance of maintaining high levels of liveability as a competitive edge in attracting and retaining the best talent and labour into the future. You may also be interested in reading the related policy discussion paper on Natural Resources and Environment, which directly addresses how planning policy might look in the future across the state with regard to matters of the environment and sustainability (i.e. water efficiency, conservation, climate change and natural hazards).

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

David Langston

14 Jan 2019

I believe the construction of new two-storey (and more) housing/accommodation which overlooks an existing residence lacks duty of care toward neighbours, that is the past and present back and front yard privacy may be intruded into and lost by peering two storey neighbour/s culminating in an unjust loss of property value.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > David Langston

14 Feb 2019

David, thank you making your points regarding privacy at the interface between houses. To be clear, the issues you raise (especially in terms of how planning policies should guide better techniques to address privacy and overlooking concerns) will be addressed in a separate discussion paper in this series entitled 'People and Neighbourhoods', which is likely to be released soon.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

David Paull

24 Dec 2018

I am appalled at the decision to allow further building in the Parklands by way of a hotel complex at the Adelaide Oval. This appears to go against the spirit of any planing to keep the Parklands as park lands. I believed that the land along North Terrace where the railway lines
used to be should have been returned to parklands, but instead it has been used for a convention centre, hotels, a science centre, a new hospital etc. These are all good projects, but shouldn't have been built on what should have been returned to parklands. Let's not create further degradation by allowing this hotel in the Parklands.
David Paull

Katrina Wright > David Paull

15 Jan 2019

Like

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > David Paull

14 Feb 2019

David, thank you for your comments on the appropriate use of the Adelaide park lands. Given that the Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper has been written to examine the way future planning policy should be written, your comments will be taken into account on that basis.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

21 Dec 2018

Hi Garry - you raise some very good points, especially about greater flexibility in the planning system that will encourage more tourism which draws people here to experience our natural environments. Aspects of this theme were raised in the Natural Resources and Environment discussion paper we released recently, in considering our lands that are currently zoned for agriculture and horticulture. We think having more options which recognise the potential for more tourism and enhancing the liveability of our state's regional areas can be addressed in new approaches in the planning system. And we hope you follow these issues through during the development of the Code and continue to give us feedback. Thanks so much for your comments.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Garry Morrison

21 Dec 2018

Increasing conservation parks and Botanic gardens in regional areas such as the Fleurieu with greater flora and fauna not only will assist tourism but also assist mitigate climate change and specie extinction.
Further assistance with greater planning flexibility to build tourism accommodation in agricultural zone land will assist tourism growth.
Greater encouragement of green spaces and greater protection of mature trees will assist mitigate climate change and assist with tourism and local liveability.
Thank you

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.