News & Discussion: Planning & Building Regulations

All other development discussion.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4791
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Article : streamline major development planning approvals

#1 Post by Howie » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:52 am

If this sort of legislation had been in place would we see what happened with Infinity Waters, the new Brickworks, among others?
Rann lays down the law to Upper House
By GREG KELTON - 28 Apr 06

LEGISLATION to streamline major development planning approvals has been proposed as the first test of strength between the State Government and the Upper House.

Introduced last year, it was never voted on because the Opposition and independents in the Upper House proposed more than 160 amendments.

Premier Mike Rann said yesterday the Government would now introduce four separate Bills relating to the planning process, the first of which would give the community and development applicants greater confidence in the impartiality and timeliness of development assessments.

He said it would ensure that council development assessment panels had an equal number of elected and specialist members. Panel members would also have to register financial and potential conflicts of interest.

Other Bills to be introduced later in the session will ensure appropriate community consultation in the development process, reducing the costs of court cases for councils and applicants, and clarifying procedures under which local heritage sites are listed in development plans.


Mr Rann said the legislation was aimed at cutting red tape and streamlining the development process, which was a major concern of business in SA.

"South Australians will be closely watching the Legislative Council this term to determine whether it is worth keeping, changing or abolishing," he said.

"The message to the Upper House is please work with us to produce an outcome, rather than the gridlock that serves no one."

Mr Rann said he believed the election result from March 18 had given the Government a "fairly strong mandate to keep things going and getting results".

He also reaffirmed the Government's aim to proceed with constitutional reform of the Upper House, with legislation to be introduced within the next few weeks.

Opposition Leader Iain Evans accused the Premier of bully boy tactics and said he should be concentrating on legislation that had the right balance so it won the argument on its merits.

"It is not for this Government to be so arrogant as to ride in on a white charger on day one and lay down the law to the Upper House as to how they will vote," he said.
Can someone get a hold of the bill and post it here for us?

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4791
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

#2 Post by Howie » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:59 am

found it... it's the Development Amendment Bill 2005.

http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/catalog ... 4-147a.htm

Haven't had a chance to have a read yet. Maybe we should all have a read and post our comments here.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5513
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 488 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Councils Stripped of Planning Powes

#3 Post by Will » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:18 pm

From the Advertiser:


COUNCILS STRIPPED OF
PLANNING POWERS
By XANTHE KLEINIG
26jun06
COUNCILLORS have lost the power to control decisions on developments ranging from backyard fences to shopping centres with new legislation handing this authority to independent experts.

In the first major legislative move by the State Government to exert more influence in local government, independent specialists will be recruited to form the majority on every development assessment panel in the state.
Planning fees will rise to recoup an extra $2 million every year to pay the sitting fees of planning and development experts who will replace the elected members.
Councils believe the controversial changes, passed late on the final sitting day of Parliament last week, will result in inappropriate local development.
The new legislation has been welcomed by developers but Local Government Association president John Rich said the changes had cut across local democracy and would limit community input.

"We will end up with decisions being made by people who meet state requirements and do not reflect local community needs," Mr Rich said.

Under the old rules, development applications that were outside the council's planning guidelines were referred by council staff to a development assessment panel. This could range from home extensions to multi-storey office blocks.

Councillors then made a judgment about whether to approve or reject applications. Councils were often criticised for inconsistent decisions and many of these were contested by developers and homeowners, resulting in costly appeals to the Environment, Resources and Development Court.

Under the new legislation, panels must comprise less than half elected members, with an equal number of independent experts, plus another expert acting as independent chair. Panels will usually total seven members. Councils will retain the power to appoint the members. Mitcham Mayor Ivan Brooks said the new rules could "change the face of Mitcham".

"Independent experts won't be responsible to anyone, and that comes at a cost," he said.

Many councils are worried about the supply of planning and development specialists, with at least 200 independent experts needed across the state.

Planning Minister Paul Holloway said the changes would take the politics out of neighbourhood developments by forcing councils to develop strict planning rules.

"If they get their development plans right it won't matter who makes the judgment," he said.

"It will give greater certainty to developers and also the community," he said.

Marion Council has had three independent members on its development assessment panel since 2003.

Mayor Felicity-ann Lewis said the system had helped the council avoid legal action on controversial decisions. It pays independent panellists $300 per session and councillors $100, costing the council about $20,000 a year for meetings every month.

"If you have a big case go to court you could spend that in a couple of months," Ms Lewis said.

The Development (Panels) Amendment Bill 2006 is the first in a raft of changes to planning laws after similar changes stalled in the Legislative Council before the last election.

The change was welcomed by Property Council executive director Bryan Moulds who said the changes were "a very important piece of legislation for South Australia".

He said they put the responsibility on to local politicians to get policy right, rather than make reactive decisions.

Members will also be forced to disclose any financial interests and potential conflicts they may have

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4791
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

#4 Post by Howie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:25 pm

it should come as no surprise, this has been a long time coming.

under the old regime, councils had often rejected proposals with little right of appeal.. also held closed door meetings... were completely inconsistent on who/what they approved.

i'm sure many local councils have demonstrated that they are simply unable to do the job properly. and eventually these changes had to be forced upon them.

btw... thank you port adelaide enfield council for approving the bikie shed, and not approving my 3m long verandah. :(

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 319 times

#5 Post by crawf » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:44 am

Does this mean we could finally see the Lecornu proposal getting built?

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 305 times
Been thanked: 144 times

#6 Post by Algernon » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:38 pm

Howie wrote:under the old regime, councils had often rejected proposals with little right of appeal..
1) the appeals process is provided by the Development Act, not local development plans.

2) Under the development act, there is no right of appeal if a non complying development is denied. This has nothing to do with the council.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4791
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

#7 Post by Howie » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:49 pm

meaning the only way to appeal this decision is to goto court?

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 305 times
Been thanked: 144 times

#8 Post by Algernon » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:39 pm

Howie wrote:meaning the only way to appeal this decision is to goto court?
No.

It means no appeal rights to the court.

You can however appeal on other grounds, such as whether the development should have been assessed as "non complying" or whatever else.

You can also re apply to council for approval - but it's in your best interests to take heed of their objections last time, and ammend the plans appropriately.

bva
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

#9 Post by bva » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:31 pm

dont forget that respondents for Cat 3 non complying have a right of appeal
also the act allows for council to refuse a non-complying at the initial stage of lodgement - in some cases this decision is not delegated but made by DAP - a change in the DAP structure may allow some non-complying applications to go further (at least consultation) than b4 -

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5513
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 488 times
Been thanked: 145 times

#10 Post by Will » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:52 pm

crawf_231 wrote:Does this mean we could finally see the Lecornu proposal getting built?
No, because the independent members still have to approve proposals according to the rules. The current rules, stipulate that the maximum height allowed in O'Connell Street is 3 levels.

What the new laws will do, is remove inconsistent and NIMBY descisions. For example the Holdfast Shores council has refused planning approval to the Latitude apartment building, even though it complies with the council development regulations. The new laws would remove descisions such as this, which are purely based on politics.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Precedent Case# Residents right to block developments

#11 Post by rhino » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:39 am

If you live on a slope and have an ocean view, should somebody be allowed to block it with a hi-rise?
A new precedent has been set at Seacliff.

I have bolded the last line, which states the current regulation..

Comments?

From today's Advertiser:
Residents win right to keep sea view
July 06, 2007 02:15am

A PRECEDENT-setting judgment has blocked construction of a building because it would obstruct neighbours' ocean views.

The decision has sparked concern on the future of beachside development in Adelaide.

The Supreme Court rejected a proposal to build a three-storey building on the Esplanade at Seacliff as it would lead to the "obliteration" of views enjoyed by residents immediately behind the site.

Mila Enterprises sought to demolish a two-storey building on the Esplanade at Seacliff and replace it with a three-storey building.

The developer planned to build a shop and two dwellings on the site, between the Seacliff Hotel and a block of units.

Neighbours Gayle Hutchens and Khristina Totos, whose units are on a rising slope behind the proposed development, objected, saying it would obstruct their ocean views.

They appealed to the Environment, Resources and Development Court after Holdfast Bay City Council approved the building.

The court upheld the development but the pair appealed again to the Supreme Court – and won.

Justice Bruce Debelle said that, while the proposed building complied with council's Development Plan on the number of storeys, it was inconsistent with principles on the protection of views.

"No one has a monopoly on views," Justice Debelle said. "At the same time, that does not entitle the proponents of a new building to obstruct the views currently enjoyed by others."

Holdfast Bay City Council mayor Ken Rollond said: "It's a problem that I can see is going to be quite huge.

"It means anywhere you get a development and it's actually conforming to your Development Plan but it does obstruct somebody else's view then they're going to have a right to appeal.

"It really is an interesting problem and I suspect it's going to have ramifications."

Mr Rollond said it was unlikely the council would appeal against the decision. Ms Totos, an actress who had roles in Crocodile Dundee and McLeod's Daughters and currently lives in Sydney, and the developer declined to comment.

An industry source said: "This is not a good precedent to set and could have very serious consequences to people who live on the beach.

"Imagine never being able to build another beach home because the people next door did not want you to?"

Housing Industry Association state executive director Robert Harding said the group would be "looking at this judgment with interest".

"We would need to consider the judgment before making any definitive comment about it," he said.

"However, generally, the law has always been that there is no right to a view unless it is protected by an encumbrance on the land."

The Property Council declined to comment.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
toby1
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away

Re: Seacliff development rejected - do you have a right to your

#12 Post by toby1 » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:12 am

tough one - i certainly think that as a resident I would want my view protected, but I know that this can then be misused by unscrupulous persons to block important or beneficial developments, as well as the ones that are just plain rude. I would suggest that each case has to be examined on its merits but then that falls down under scrutiny due to the fickle nature of humans ...

perhaps it could be viewed in terms of the value of property - in that a view is often a selling point, and can add value to a property - thus if the view is obscured/blocked/reduced the value of a property is being affected and development guidelines could then apply based on fairness? I have no experience with development laws but there should be some fair use type clauses? ("on just terms" - thanks to The Castle :wink: )
Thou Shalt Ignite That Which Burns

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Seacliff development rejected - do you have a right to your

#13 Post by urban » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:37 am

This is a very dangerous precedent and will be used by all types of NIMBY's.

As I have stated before on this site the time to change the rules of a development plan is when they come up for a review as part of the regular PAR process. If you have bought a property which has the potential to be built out under the development plan then you are taking the gamble that it won't be. With all forms of gambling there is always a chance that you will lose. This is just another case of sore losers.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Seacliff development rejected - do you have a right to your

#14 Post by stumpjumper » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:02 am

This is a problem of relative benefits.

The situation of the ladies is made more dramatic bu the fact that the view concerned is a sea view, but in reality the situation would be exactly the same were the argument about 'rights to light', access to light being different only in degree from access to a view.

The problem of 'rights to light' at least in SA has been setled for years. It is quite clear that there are none. No rights to light (other than in certain cases as protected by encumbrance) come into being if a window or view is exposed, or built for the first time. Nor do rights to light result form some sort of adverse possion - ie having enjoyed the view for 20 years, you have no more right to it than you ever did.

Having said that, if a house has a window legally built near a boundary, a new building on the adjoining lot is liklely to have to respect the existence of that window as far as overlooking is concerned, but the 'rights' of the existing window owner are quite limited.

You could ask a lawyer, but I think you might just get the same news said better.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5513
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 488 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: #Article : Residents win right to keep sea view (precedent c

#15 Post by Will » Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:37 am

This is a very dangerous precedent, which has been established. It could potentially be used to stop all forms of development , not only on the beach, but the decision could be used to stop all kinds of buildings everywhere. The developers should lodge an appeal, and hopefully get the supreme court to make a more common-sense decision.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest