From the office of the Mayor City of Onkaparinga · 2019-02-22 · From the office of the Mayor...

From the office of the Mayor City of Onkaparinga

Our Ref: 4768310

22 February 2019 Sally Smith General Manager, Planning and Development Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO Box 1533 ADELAIDE SA 5001 via email: [email protected] Dear Sally Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback through this submission on the Productive Economy Policy Discussion Paper. Council’s Strategic Directions Committee (the Committee) at its meeting held 5 February 2019 considered and approved the attached submission. As an additional element to the agenda item, the Committee also resolved to propose the following questions to the State Government.

In view of the stated State agenda to grow the population at a greater rate, the City of Onkaparinga would like an explanation of the following: What empirical evidence exists to show that increasing population by migration: Increases PER CAPITA wealth, adjusted for inflation? Increases PER CAPITA income, adjusted for inflation? Increases PER CAPITA job opportunities? If per capita income is shown to have a real increase, is this increase maintained after adjustment for: Real increases in fines, levies, fees and charges that people have had to pay,

averaged over the last 10 years? Real increases in rent and house prices averaged over the last 10 years? If per capita wealth is shown to have a real increase, is this increase maintained after adjustment for per capita real increase in debt liability of local, state and federal governments? What are the quality of life impacts of a rapidly growing population?

We ask that the State Planning Commission and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure consider and respond to the above.

mailto:[email protected]

rawlind

DPTI Date Stamp

2

Productive Economy Policy Submission We commend the State Planning Commission on developing the blueprint for South Australia’s Planning and Design Code (the Code), and furthering the consideration of our productive economy. The Discussion Paper has rightly highlighted the role the Code can play in enhancing South Australia’s economic competitiveness, protecting and growing key industries, linking people to jobs, goods and services, providing infrastructure to enhance liveability, and facilitating greater opportunities for innovation. This letter highlights key matters of importance to Council generally with more detailed comments enclosed in the submission table. Theme 1: supporting and growing key industries Tourism and primary industries are both critically important parts of Onkaparinga’s economy with outputs of $210 million (visitor expenditure in 2017) and $243 million respectively and employing over 4,000 people combined. The Code must provide the protection of viable and established primary production whilst finding a balance with demand for tourism related development. Theme 2: linking people to jobs, goods and services Retail trade and manufacturing together employ over 10,000 people in the City of Onkaparinga with strong growth continuing in the retail sector. Although manufacturing has seen a decline in employment numbers, it continues to lead the output to the value of $2,485.497 million. Home based businesses account for some 60 per cent of all businesses in our city. The Code should include policies that are adaptable to allow employment markets to evolve in response to changing business and community needs and recognise the move to business models that blend operating, service and delivery methods. Theme 3: providing infrastructure to enhance our liveability The Code should require passive design and urban greening for all development for improved energy efficiency whilst recognising changes in energy creation and infrastructure provision and be able to respond and adapt accordingly. We support the adaptive reuse of unused farm houses particularly heritage listed buildings however the issue of separate titling raises some concerns and requires further discussions. There would need to be built in mechanisms that prevent circumvention of the system, which results in the use being for residential purposes.

3

Theme 4: facilitating innovation and enabling investment We support the Code providing a policy framework that enables innovation districts that facilitate collaboration and clustering however to be successful innovation districts also require substantial investment and funding. We encourage the state government to give further consideration to this. A sharing economy can provide positive opportunities however, without proper regulation it can result in negative impacts on our community. Further discussion focussed on planning policy, regulation and disruptive innovations and technologies is needed prior to the implementation of the Code. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the matters raised in our submission or provide further explanation. Should you have further questions, please contact Craig Jones, Development Policy Planner on or email . Yours sincerely

Erin Thompson Mayor enc. Productive Economy Submission Analysis Table

PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY SUBMISSION

1

Discussion Questions Response Suggested Policy Direction

THEME 1: SUPPORTING AND GROWING KEY INDUSTRIES

SUB THEME 1.1 - PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

Q1 Should the Code include a 40 metre interface buffer between rural and residential, but allow a smaller buffer distance if it can be justified?

The protection of viable and established primary industry areas from encroachment by incompatible adjoining development is critical.

Previous expert advice has indicated a suitable buffer can consist of 10m cleared land, 20m dense vegetation, then a further 10m cleared land.

However, there will always be a challenge in separating rural and residential uses whether at the town edge or from rural living allotments.

Specifying a ‘one size fits all’ separation distance is somewhat outdated and irrelevant when solutions can be achieved on a case by case or new technology basis.

The Code could adopt a 40 metre buffer requirement between primary production and residential uses as per our existing Primary Production Zone policy.

Alternatively, based on advice from the Department of Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA), a performance assessed criteria could be applied where further investigation would be required to ascertain buffer distances on a case by case basis, specific investigations and through technology.

In addition various buffer distances / treatments could also be applied depending on the land use / reason for a buffer. These may include:

areas of scenic value

inter-urban breaks

biodiversity

waterways/watershed/wetlands/flood

bushfire hazard


2


extractive resources

The Code needs to provide certainty to primary production areas, industries and producers that ensures their viability without having to face increased pressure from non-envisaged land uses.

Q2 Does policy regarding subdivision and minimum allotment sizes need to be reviewed and strengthened?

Yes, policy should be reviewed as allowing rural living allotments can create interface issues with envisaged primary production activities and ancillary land uses that support them.

Over time the gradual change in the allotment patterns and proximity between dwellings can also alter the character and setting of a rural environment. For Onkaparinga, the southern expressway has opened up the area which has seen an increase in demand for rural lifestyle properties.

As our Primary Production Zone is contained in the McLaren Vale Character Preservation District (the District) (which covers some 72 per cent of Onkaparinga), this potential change in character is at odds with Character Values of the District.

There is also difficulty in separating land division (including realignment) that supports

All proposals for land division (including realignment) should demonstrate how the division promotes the objectives of the Primary Production Zone, and if it doesn’t then it should not be supported.

Where land division (including realignment of allotment boundaries) supports viable primary production continuation, however the process should be simpler (and cheaper) for the proponent.

Onkaparinga has been facing pressure for rural living allotments (generally one hectare in size) in our Primary Production Zone. Prior to the Code implementation, we welcome more discussion and community consultation on whether boundary realignments that propose rural living allotments are appropriate at all, and if so when and where they are may be appropriate.

The provision of a minimum allotment size


3


primary production from that which creates purely rural living allotments. We support better guidance for merit assessment of boundary realignments, particularly when rural living allotments are proposed.

We also welcome a review of policy to consider the correlation of allotment sizes and limitations of land uses e.g. intensive animal keeping may require a larger allotment. Furthermore, we consider there should also be a policy review to set limitations on what constitutes a boundary realignment verses reconfiguration; that is how much change to the size of an allotment is appropriate before it should be considered a new allotment.

(currently 16 hectares) will continue to assist to provide an area for a suitable buffer to separate uses, in particular existing rural residential.

Through the introduction of the Code a policy review into what constitutes a boundary alignment is needed such that ‘new’ allotments are not created as a result i.e. where greater than 10 per cent of the boundary and/or allotment size changes.

Consultation with councils, state agencies (particularly PIRSA), and farming and development industry representatives is needed to further a policy position.

Furthermore, under the Character Preservation District (McLaren Vale) Act 2012 (the Act) allotments for residential must be refused which we continue to fully supported. At present the Act does not prescribe what a ‘residential’ allotment means nor prescribes a quantitative size.

Providing a quantitative minimum allotment size and/or description to what constitutes a ‘residential allotment’ would remove this ambiguity. Under the Act, this section remains ambiguous and therefore potentially open to


4


different interpretations and challenges.

SUB THEME 1.2 - TOURISM

Q3 Do we need to review our signage policies? In particular, do we need facilities for third party advertising and tourism advertising? For example, should there be more scope for tourism signs on arterial roads and outside of townships?

Yes, however it is about being strategic including where (digital) bill boards make a positive contribution through local community and visitor information.

The Onkaparinga Development Plan General Section provisions and Table Onka/5 guidelines are considered to be generally appropriate, however the current non-complying provisions for advertisements should be reviewed.

In particular, any ‘advertisement’ in the Hills Face Zone is non-complying, and the Primary Production Zone non-complying exceptions are sometimes unnecessarily difficult to satisfy.

Third party advertisements away from the land upon which a sign is proposed should continue to not be supported.

DPTI requirements in relation to signage on their land in strategic locations should also be reviewed, as some times their land is the only practical location – noting their relaxation of digital bill boards on the Southern Expressway

The Code can be written to provide both deemed to satisfy and performance assessed criteria.

Deemed to satisfy could provide guidance around size, materials, and placement (say within 100m to township boundaries).

Performance assessed could also include criteria where it benefits the community.


5


and Dyson Road as examples.

There are also digital signage opportunities where integration with wi-fi and data beacons could also be additional support for messaging hazards/risk (e.g. bushfire, traffic accidents).

We would also support the facilitation of trails/route signage where a reasonable number of businesses cluster together to deliver experiences – subject to prescribed guidelines / criteria.

Council general comment 1 relating to tourism

The issue of providing a more flexible policy environment for larger scale accommodation along the coast and in the McLaren Vale Character Preservation District (CPD) and more supportive policy/legislation for events which attract visitors and business growth has been raised.

Tourism has become an important part of Onkaparinga’s economy, attracting over 1.2 million visitors, generating $210 million in visitor expenditure in 2017 and directly employing 2,485 people. The sector significantly contributes to the City of Onkaparinga’s Community Plan, Onkaparinga 2035, through people, place and prosperity and enables a strong, sustainable and vibrant city.

A new wave of innovative tourism development emerging within the city, with the iconic d'Arenberg Cube creating a game-changing tourism experience.

While the city’s tourism strengths lie in food and wine, aquatic and nature, arts and culture, events have also driven an enviable increase in tourism over the past five years. One identified weakness is the limited larger scale accommodation offer, especially in the wine region and coastline.

Through our draft Tourism Strategic Management Plan, council will advocate on behalf of local business and residents as well as seek support from others who are able to apply influence to an issue, or funding/ investment/resources to a service, project or area.


6


The current state and local planning framework provides challenges for such types of development.

As part of the state planning framework review, council continues to advocate for policy which supports appropriate city-wide tourism development and tourism infrastructure needs.

Council general comment 2 relating to tourism

A question has been raised in relation to the scenario where current policy refers to and limits ‘industry activity’ which is ancillary to wine production.

An example is cheese production which is defined under the Development Regulations 2008 as a ‘service industry’.

By way of land use definitions an entirely appropriate land use which is not dissimilar in nature to a winery is captured as to make it a land use not envisaged for the Primary Production Zone, particularly in a location that has a major focus on tourism and supporting activities.

Through the planning reforms, it is understood that the State Planning Commission and DPTI are reviewing the definitions and terminology list.

On this basis, we would support land use definitions labelled under a genus as well as an individual description.

SUB THEME 1.3 - MINING AND EXPLORATION

Q4 Should undeveloped strategic mineral resources be identified and protected from urban encroachment and other incompatible development?

Our natural resources are finite so it makes sense to protect them from lower value uses such as housing and other forms of urban encroachment.

While Onkaparinga provides an enviable lifestyle – arguably the greatest of its competitive advantages – with the introduction of more compact housing forms and considering identified growth areas –there is sufficient capacity for growth in our region without jeopardising future mineral

Urban forms should not encroach on strategic mineral resources and should be designed to minimise any potential adverse impacts of extractive industries.

This can be achieved through the use of appropriate zoning (e.g. Mineral Extraction Zone) including appropriate buffers (distance and treatments).

Where a proposal to close off a source of natural resource is under consideration, the


7


reserves.

Waste landfill and recycling, along with quarries and sand mining are major contributors to our local economy, so protecting undeveloped future sites is important.

Solar and other clean energy opportunities can be co-located at the rehabilitated landfill and quarry sites.

Some precious minerals are located in our region so demand could emerge in future based on need which needs to be catered for.

proponent should demonstrate the resource is exhausted or no longer required before consideration of site reuse or rehabilitation.

THEME 2: LINKING PEOPLE TO JOBS, GOODS AND SERVICES

SUB THEME 2.1 - CENTRES, RETAIL AND MIXED USE ACTIVITIES

Q5 Is there a need to retain the centres hierarchy or not – is it still relevant to today’s planning?

Centres are differentiated in their hierarchy with respect to (among other things) the existence of bulky goods, transport infrastructure (connections to efficient supply chains and public transport) and essential services.

A policy setting should acknowledge and strengthen the role of the major (regional) centre as the economic/cultural/ entertainment/ other focus of the planning

The Code can contain new descriptors for centres based on the desired character of the place and desired land uses to support the level and extent of economic activity which is often dictated by area of the zone.

These policies should be adaptable enough to allow employment markets to evolve in response to changing business and community needs and recognise that contemporary production processes often


8


area.

Overall however, the centres hierarchy no longer seems to align with emerging new business models and mixed use opportunities. Feedback we’ve received is that the old hierarchy model is somewhat meaningless in changing commercial / adaptive times.

However, within existing centres the floor areas of supermarkets and other large retailers such as bulky goods are limited. This ensures appropriate planning within and around centres, including road networks and higher residential densities located around and within higher order centres.

We note there is a move within the State Planning Commission similar to Victoria, with recognising Major Activity Centres and Activity Centres.

involve a blending of services delivery, assembly and logistics in the one premises.

If an objective is to separate large floor plate land uses such as Bunnings etc. so that the viability of the centres network is not compromised there is the option to introduce a Specialised Centre Zone as seen in the Sunshine Coast, Queensland and the Wyong Local Environmental Plan 2013 (in NSW) includes a specific ‘B5 Business Development zone’.

This could be a sub zone or overlay for large floor plate retail business activities and a range of retail business activities predominantly in the form of showrooms, garden centres, hardware and trade supplies, outdoor sales and some industrial uses. Generally bulky goods uses are not suited to establish in lower order centre zones and are best located outside of activity centres, adjacent to major roads.

Q6 Should there be residential development within retail centres? If so, how could / should this occur?

Yes, residential development should be within retail centres to inject life and activation at more times. As centres become full there will be more opportunities to build up rather than out.

The level of residential development in a centre should be dependent upon the role of that centre (as above in question 5) and compliment the intended land use activities of that centre.


9


This can occur above and/or behind commercial development, with appropriate access, parking, services, acoustic protection etc. It is important that residential development, which may have a more immediate return to a developer, does not occur at the expense of retail commercial uses.

It is important that the ‘Desired Outcomes’ of business zones place an emphasis on predominant desired land uses such as retail, commercial and other business activities and note residential uses as ancillary or secondary.

Development policy could include controls to limit the residential floor space percentage, require that any residential uses be located behind or above retail/commercial uses particularly in a ‘high street’ context in order to retain/encourage active street front.

A centre with a focus on large floor plate retail and bulky goods should be protected from residential encroachment. However, other centres with residential development will contribute to activating the centre and supporting an evening economy. In major activity centres such as Noarlunga Centre, subzones could be used to facilitate both forms of development with a focus on interface, and transition between land uses.

SUB THEME 2.2 - EMPLOYMENT LANDS (INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING AND COMMERCIAL)

Q7 Should there be a more flexible approach to encouraging a wide range of land uses in non-residential zones – with a land use

Flexibility is the ‘new normal’ so in principle yes we support the encouragement of a wider range of land uses in non-residential zones

A similar policy direction to our recent Employment Lands DPA is supported where the core / envisaged land uses are maintained


10


genus, impact and design focus, rather than strict land use definitions?

(our 2018 Employment Lands DPA has started to address this). There is a need to carefully consider where conflict between commercial and industrial uses may occur. There is likely to be a reduced overall demand for traditional industrial land. It is important to retain some large allotment land for large floorplate industrial or warehousing uses.

We note the State Government has a focus on protecting and expanding certain sectors (e.g. Entertainment / Events / Music SA policy etc.)

but ancillary land uses are allowed e.g. a manufacturer is able to have an onsite showroom for their product.

The key is finding the balance between flexibility and not impacting other locations – the concern is enabling out of centre retail activity.

Q8 Is there too much emphasis placed on height and setback criteria in employment lands zones, in particular the ‘core’ of these zones?

Yes, a ‘one size fits all’ height and setback criteria in employment land zones may restrict emerging industries..

Our recent Employment Lands DPA explored this issue and introduced a design focused outcome to reduce impacts.

The Code should recognise interface and core areas, but either way should also focus on design outcomes which include provision of quality landscaping.

SUB THEME 2.3 - HOME-BASED BUSINESSES

Q9 What innovations and changes to work practices will impact the planning system and how should we respond?

Home based businesses make up around 1500 of the 9000 active businesses in Onkaparinga, so are a significant sub-sector.

5G mobile technology coverage commencing early 2020 in Australia has the potential to increase the ability to work from home, at

The Code should be focused on quality outcomes which can be controlled through performance based and impact minimisation orientated policy settings.

Application of similar criteria for ‘Home Activity’ as contained in the Development Act


11


least a few days a week.

Also increased demand for 24/7 delivery models also impacts on current retail and commercial planning policy (where capital investment in offices and retail needs increased return on investment = more usage second / third shifts and evening work).

1993 could be carried over.

Likewise, current policy for Home Business within the South Australian Planning Policy Library is warranted to be carried over.

THEME 3: PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENHANCE OUR LIVEABILITY

SUB THEME 3.1 - RENEWABLE ENERGY

Q10 How should planning policy respond to growth in renewable energy – what issues should be addressed?

Planning policy needs to recognise the changing needs in energy creation and consumption patterns.

With the increased use of ‘behind the meter’ solar and onsite battery storage, we expect an increase in self-sufficient homes and the introduction of micro-grids resulting in self-sufficient communities.

Planning policy should not be a barrier to the uptake of this new technology.

The system should recognise and allow for the transition from a centralised electricity generation system to a more decentralised and sophisticated model.

Further, the system also must encourage

Planning policy should:

be underpinned by passive design principles so to encourage homes that use energy efficiently and reduce energy overall demand

encourage urban greening to reduce the urban heat island effect as another method for reducing energy demand

allow the placement of photovoltaic solar cells in optimum positions to maximise energy capture on site

provide solar access rights to ensure optimum energy capture (balanced with the need for infill)


12


passive design and urban greening to underpin these efforts. Using less energy and energy more efficiently is still by far the most sustainable way forward.

There is another critical underpinning that supports the transition to renewable energy – and that is when new subdivisions connect to gas. Residents should have a choice about whether they want to use fossil fuels or not. It is only by going all-electric that houses can utilise 100% renewables and therefore can, over time, achieve zero emissions.

We understand that the Hon Mark Parnell MLC has a Private Members Bill before Parliament on this issue in response to this occurring in Mt Barker – where new residents are actually required to get a gas connection.

Renewable energy is overtaking other energy sources with SA ahead of the game. Facilitating opportunities for the future of Onkaparinga generating its own power cannot be underestimated.

not preclude innovative infrastructure that can facilitate the sharing of energy between households

anticipate and allow for the introduction of vehicle charging points throughout the urban area

anticipate and allow for critical, sustainable energy infrastructure in proximity to urban areas (e.g. wind farms, solar farms, geothermal and waste to energy)

anticipate and allow for the move from centralised electricity generation to decentralised generation and local storage, including in and around urban areas.

SUB THEME 3.2 - ADAPTIVE REUSE

Q11 Should existing unused farm houses be able to be separately titled to allow their

We support the adaptive reuse of unused farm houses in particular heritage listed

Whether the Code enables separate tilting of heritage properties needs further


13


adaptive reuse and to facilitate economic activity?

buildings, and a separate titling system may warrant consideration if it facilitates economic activity.

However, with a separate title there is a need to consider adequate built form separation / curtilage around the heritage listed farmhouse to maintain historical setting/context.

Adjacent land uses also need to be taken into consideration in determining appropriate land area/separation in any new title as per question 1 above.

A separate title should be able to provide functional connection and historical relationship between structures.

In rural areas the creation of a separate title is at odds with the Character Preservation District (CPD). Unless changes are made to the Act, and special justification is provided, it is difficult to support.

Finding a balance here is critical and would require clear guidelines so as not just to facilitate the division of land.

Recent successful examples of value-adding in primary production areas locally include industries such as Makers Movement with the clustering of food, beverage and craft

consideration and engagement with landowners, tourism operators, primary producers, associations, local government and other interested parties.

In terms of economic activity, the Code will need to provide policy flexible enough to accommodate tourism and service industries to on-farm or product-based value-adding opportunities, the ‘value chains’ that support primary production.

Activities which are consistent and support primary production may include:

nature-based tourism or short term accommodation (where for a camping ground or small scale holiday cabins)

home based business

shop (includes cellar door and art centres)

food (olives, cheese making) and other beverage (non-alcoholic)

restaurant

function centres

agricultural industries

wineries, breweries, cideries and


14


products. distilleries

SUB THEME 3.3 - INFRASTRUCTURE

Q12 How can we ensure that land use planning is able to accommodate and support the provision of new and innovative infrastructure?

Improved infrastructure is economically important to any region, so planning policy should support its delivery in an orderly and co-ordinated manner.

Performance based planning assessment can allow for private infrastructure flexibility. Infrastructure that is to become a council asset needs to be to the reasonable satisfaction of council, with consultation to occur on what the common infrastructure standards are to be.

The PDI Act introduces two new Infrastructure Schemes, the ‘Basic’ and the ‘General’ Infrastructure Schemes.

Whilst these schemes do appear to offer a means of bringing forward the provision of critical infrastructure and greater clarity around funding mechanisms, how practical/effective they are remains to be seen.

Development contributions for infrastructure can provide for the resourcing of public open space, footpaths, street trees, parks and land for community facilities, roads, sewer and stormwater. This underpins the need to properly identify infrastructure requirements at the planning stage (high level for Local Area Plan and more detailed at the DPA/Code Amendment stage) in order that costs may be estimated and apportioned across a development precinct. If costs are known at a ‘per allotment’ or ‘net developable area’ basis developers that develop early, but provide necessary infrastructure upfront are not penalised as they are able to be credited for costs identified in an infrastructure plan.

We tentatively support the approach being adopted in the new PDI Act and Discussion Paper (which is broad and non-specific), noting that the outcomes of the recent pilot projects will need to inform the final approach adopted with respect to Infrastructure Schemes.

We also note that public infrastructure must


15


be flexible enough to accommodate emerging trends such as the integration of data technology and the internet, driverless cars and ride sharing, charging stations.

In relation to Infrastructure Schemes, as an example, the Queensland State Government’s local government infrastructure plan (LGIP) provides a transparent system for the provision of infrastructure that enables councils to:

estimate cost of infrastructure (for long term planning based on population and economic growth)

integrate infrastructure with land uses in the development plan (Code)

provide a basis for conditions on development approvals.

On this basis, we would support the commencement of both state wide and local government infrastructure management plans.

THEME 4: FACILITATING INNOVATION AND ENABLING INVESTMENT

SUB THEME 4.1 - COLLABORATION AND CLUSTERING


16


Q13 Do we have adequate planning policies in place to encourage/support the aims of innovation districts?

Innovation Districts may test existing zoning with uses and clustering not anticipated.

An example is new technical pharmaceutical sectors like medical cannabis research and production located in industrial areas.

True ‘Smart Cities’ technology implementation is generally not catered for in existing planning policy. We need to cater for designing a successful innovation district, to provide innovation district frameworks - urban, productive, collaborative, and creative - to accelerate the city’s innovative ecosystem (live work and play) capacity.

Increased flexibility may also be appropriate to facilitate demands of the future which are often difficult to identify and quantify. What is clear is that innovation and disruptive change will play an increasing role in shaping our future.

Future drivers within our city will include:

small manufacturers and service industries (on less than 2000m²), generally to serve the local region

food and wine related

tourism, as part of broader Fleurieu Peninsula

The Code can provide improved certainty for industry and business by focusing on the designation of employment lands and precincts to support industry clustering and activity.

Through a recent desk top review of international and national business parks, industrial parks and associated zones that support such innovation, we identified key themes that have contributed to their success.

A ‘plan’ to control environment: Allowing business parks to adapt to change, in particular with amenity provision, transport infrastructure and a mix of uses incorporated into park design.

Scale: The larger the more likely successful due to diversity on offer


17


Complement the city centre offer: Business parks located near to areas where city supply is constrained or of poor quality are more likely to be successful as they can tap into overflow demand.

Transport links: Business parks benefit from established public transport links which opens up park to a wider workforce and boosts sustainability credentials; proximity to an airport is a bonus.

Supply of car parking: Volume of parking available for workers/visitors is an important factor.

Building quality: A high quality building creates a positive image with users, investors and occupiers.

In addition, to deliver successful innovation districts (or business parks) ongoing encumbrance management is required (e.g. to determine appropriate uses, built form and business attraction).

Through the Code adapting the above principles, successful innovation districts can be achieved. This needs to be supported


18


through a strategically planned supply of land; the identification and provision of supporting infrastructure such as freight networks; and planning policy which is clearly articulated and flexible enough to respond to future challenges and opportunities.

Q14 How do we ensure that residential development does not monopolise the offering in mixed-use areas of innovation districts?

State Government land releases of large parcels are based on residential desire rather than innovation and mixed-use opportunities.

Aldinga Beach and surrounds is a good example where housing has increased populations beyond the capacity for the area to support jobs and services to those new residents.

To this end, council undertook the Aldinga District Centre DPA and Employment Lands DPA to foster mixed use environments and land use innovation.

There is an opportunity for areas like Port Stanvac which need to be secured for mixed-use innovation districts.

As we think and plan for the future ‘local jobs’ is an important community issue in all levels of government. We need to ensure that local workers have access to affordable housing and ease of transport.

The Code can provide policy for designated housing, student accommodation and a diversity of affordable housing types in mixed use innovation areas (and/or activity centres) that is ‘capped’ or ratio based approach so as not to compromise or dominate the area over non-residential uses.

In addition to a numerical ratio, parameters around form could be included as development controls.


19


SUB THEME 4.2 - E-COMMERCE AND A SHARING ECONOMY

Q15 Does planning policy need to respond better to new ways of doing business such as the emergence of the sharing economy – which may require the introduction of controls to mitigate previously unanticipated effects (for example, the conversion of long term rentals into short stay holiday accommodation via online platforms)?

New technology impacts cannot be predicted because next year’s ‘big thing’ may not have been invented yet or commercialised, but new technologies and trends continue to emerge. As such, we need to be prepared to how we plan today for things that happen in the near future.

Yes, both policy and legislation needs to change for clarity, certainty and fairness.

For example, Airbnbs do not have to abide by the same regulations as hotels/motels and accredited accommodation properties. In addition, no planning approval for such a land use is required. The Advisory Notice issued by DPTI on behalf of the former Minister for Planning in 2017 stated, ‘a dwelling will remain a dwelling if it is occupied sporadically; let out during holiday periods to short term occupants; let for short term use; or if the owner lives overseas or interstate and uses it occasionally and then for relatively short periods. Unless development is undertaken to physically alter the dwelling such that it is no longer a dwelling, it remains a dwelling’. The Minister concluded a person's

There has been much discussion about Airbnb rentals and where they sit in relation to South Australian planning laws.

Planning governs land use, if a land use changes it requires approval from the local council. The question needs to be asked (and answered) ‘what is the difference between a hotel, motel, holiday house, serviced apartments and Airbnb rental’.

Airbnb is a digital booking mechanism so why is Airbnb subject to a different consideration, where there may be no regulation of number of occupants, hours kept or noise generated, all of which will be regulated by an approval for a commercial hotel or motel?

If a residence changes its nature from a dwelling to tourist accommodation on a permanent basis we consider this may be sufficient to be a change of use that would require council approval.

We would welcome further discussion and consultation on this matter.

Innovation districts can be supported by the Code through specific zone modules and


20


period of stay in a residential property should not constitute a ‘change in use’ under the Development Act.

However, a land use does not change just because the booking method or ‘e-description’. From a planning perspective, if the use within a dwelling is not for residential purposes, then it should be considered in the same way as other temporary accommodation. Unfortunately the current planning system has not adequately addressed this. In NSW recently an attempt to address this was made by limiting the number of Airbnb bookings to 180 days in a year before a tourist use was triggered. It is considered that this is too high and should be closer to 90 days as a maximum. This also presents issues in terms of building rules and classification of buildings when the nature of the use changes.

In terms of new ways to do business, Blockchain technology and digital currencies could be a future technology opportunity which unlocks a new sharing economy. This was not predicted and in just a few years has altered the financial business landscape.

We understand that Blockchain is already

policies that support the emergence of new technologies and activities. One simple mechanism could be through promoting ride share vehicles through a reduced car parking rate or removal of car parking requirements all together.


21


utilised in some apartment and office complexes to share appropriate costs of utilities across the tenants in an equitable and open manner.

The ‘sharing economy’ in respect of sharing individual vehicles and ride sharing could have a positive effect in removing the need for parking around residential dwellings.

Q16 What will be the emerging industry impacts of e-Commerce and how should these be managed by the Code?

e-Commerce is already impacting planning policy as bank branches are no longer needed in centres. ATM’s are on the way out as phones, cards and online rule payment platforms. On line shopping has impacts on bricks and mortar businesses and increasing need for courier delivery of goods purchased.

As a result the demand for retail floor space is reducing. Many retail centres such as those owned by Westfield and Lend Lease have been diversifying their offering to include uses such as restaurants, cinemas and other non-retail uses in order to encourage shoppers to stay longer. This in turn has the potential to impact high streets that have traditionally included cafés and restaurants.

We question whether it is the role of the Code to ‘manage’ these changes rather we consider the Code should provide the flexibility and fluidity to respond to such changes and demands in a timely manner.

From the office of the Mayor City of Onkaparinga · 2019-02-22 · From the office of the Mayor...

Documents

Transcript of From the office of the Mayor City of Onkaparinga · 2019-02-22 · From the office of the Mayor...