Back in September as a result of another major petition presented to the SA State Parliament, the Legislative Review Committee of parliament conducted an enquiry into the new planning rules. Cr Leith Mudge and Cr Kirrilee Boyd (the originators of this petition) made a submission to the committee relating to the inclusion of the Adelaide Hills Council Median Rule Land Division Tool in the P&D Code. Here is the text of the submission: 

INCLUSION OF THE ADELAIDE HILLS COUNCIL MEDIAN RULE LAND DIVISION TOOL IN THE P&D CODE

Dear Secretary,

We are writing to you in response to your call for submissions in consideration of Petition No. 2 of 2020 – Planning Reform.

As residents of the Adelaide Hills Council district we wish to express our concerns about the lack of inclusion of the Median Rule Land Division Tool in the draft Planning and Design Code (P&D Code). The Median Rule Land Division Tool is applicable to the Country Living zone (incorporating parts of Crafers, Crafers West, Stirling, Heathfield, Upper Sturt and Aldgate) in the current Adelaide Hills Council Development Plan.

The P&D Code, in its initial implementation, is meant to represent a like-for-like transposition of planning rules in development plans without exclusion. However, the draft code has not included this tool. The tool currently prevents excessive subdivision and protects the renowned leafy character of these neighbourhoods.

The Median Rule Land Division Tool limits subdivisions to no smaller than the median size of neighbouring properties within a 200 m radius of the property, or to 2,000 sqm (approx. ½ acre), whichever is the greatest.

Losing the Median Rule Land Division Tool would mean that 367 existing allotments could be subdivided in the Country Living zone. Some of these could subdivide into multiple allotments, e.g. an existing 35,000 sqm (approx. 8½ acres) allotment could subdivide into 14 new allotments.

This is a mammoth change with huge repercussions for the character and amenity of our area. We believe is an unintended consequence of the new P&D Code. The current changes in the draft P&D Code do not present like-for-like policy transition.

It also poses a serious threat to native vegetation, regulated and sometimes centuries old significant trees as a result of exemptions that allow removal of any trees within 20 m of a dwelling in a bushfire hazard area. Once subdivided, each new allotment would entitled to have at least one dwelling built on it. This could devastate local biodiversity and have serious consequences for the quality of Adelaide’s water supply and storm water as the area is part of the water catchment for Mt Bold Reservoir and the Sturt Creek.

Residents have already seen the consequence of State Government imposed changes to zoning rules in Mt Barker and want to ensure that rampant development does not affect this part of the Hills as an unintended consequence of State Government imposed changes.

We are concerned that while the intention of the Median Rule Land Division Tool may eventually be implemented in the P&D Code, opportunistic developers may exploit its initial exclusion to create a large number of new allotments.

The Adelaide Hills Council has indicated to the State Government their concern about the missing of the tool in the draft P&D Code in the following extract from their draft response to the P&D Code Phase 3 Consultation (emphasis ours):

In section 3.1:

Median Rule Land Division Tool

The Country Living Zone captures the residential areas surrounding Crafers, Stirling, Aldgate and Bridgewater is proposed to be replaced with the Residential Neighbourhood Zone. It is Council’s understanding that this zone was developed to fill a policy gap between smaller and larger rural living allotments. With this in mind it is considered that the existing Country Living Zone has a character that is unique to its locality and one that does not fundamentally align with Rural Living Zones. This is particularly relevant when considering Council’s award winning Median Land Division Tool and how it responds to the unique development pattern within the Zone. As it stands the Median Rule Land Division Tool has not been included in the draft P+D Code for Phase 3 councils, we consider this creates a policy shortfall and would strongly advocate for consideration to the tool’s inclusion, with sufficient time to collaborate with Council on how this can be achieved.

In Section 5.12.1:

Median Rule Land Division Tool Integration

As discussed in Section 3.1, it is considered that the loss of the Median Rule Land Division Tool creates a policy shortfall in the proposed Residential neighbourhood Zone that is difficult to reconcile with a blunt quantitative TNV criteria. It is noted that with the current 2000sqm minimum TNV applied, some 367 allotments would potentially be eligible for subdivision. This is considered to pose a threat to the existing Country Living character and amenity and does not present a like for like policy transition.

Proposal: Council requests that the SPC support the inclusion of the Median Rule Land Division Tool to apply to land division applications in the Residential Neighbourhood Zone. It is considered that the spatial nature of the Median Rule Land Division Tool lends itself to being integrated into the Residential Neighbourhood Zone via a TNV.

This position was endorsed by Adelaide Hills Council’s Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee (SPDPC) on Tuesday 18 February 2020.

A full copy of the draft report can be found as Appendix 2 to Item 6.1 on the SPDPC agenda here: https://www.ahc.sa.gov.au/ahc-council/Documents/SPDPC/SPDPC-Agenda/200218%20SPDPC%20Agenda_opt.pdf

This is issue has been a cause for wide community concern as shown by an online petition that at the time of this submission had received 2,122 signatures from concerned residents and citizens. The petition is found here: http://chng.it/RN5rxmvbh6

We therefore request that rules that effectively implement the intent of the current Median Rule Land Division Tool be included in the final version of Phase 3 of the P&D Code prior to implementation.

We would like to express interest in making a verbal submission to the committee in support of this written submission.

This submission has been written by Cr Leith Mudge and Cr Kirrilee Boyd of the Adelaide Hills Council, but is done in our capacity as private citizens and local residents and not on behalf of the Council. The opinions expressed in this submission are those of the writers and are not necessarily the policy or position of the Adelaide Hills Council.

Yours truly,

Leith Mudge              Kirrilee Boyd