Welcome to edition No.12 of ‘Planning Matters’, the newsletter produced by URPS twice a year. We hope you enjoy

some highlights of the work we’ve been doing with many of you over recent months. You can also access electronic

copies of this and all our past newsletters on our website at www.urps.com.au

Bridging the gap between science and decision making

Just weeks after the release of the latest Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change report on climate science was released by the United Nations, URPS together with Seed Consulting Services held a seminar exploring how to apply climate change science to decision making processes.

Our guest speaker was Mark Rogers, the Asset Manager of Infrastructure Investment for Colonial First State Global

Asset Management. Mark is also the Deputy Chairman of Infrastructure for the Sustainability Council of Australia.

Over breakfast, Mark talked about real life examples of how he uses climate change science to assist with robust

decision making on major investment projects, such as Brisbane’s third airport runway i.e. ensuring that the runway

will not be inundated during storm events and king tides.

A key message from the seminar was that bridging the gap between science and action need not be a daunting

task, something we are learning in our climate change adaptation projects. In South Australia, there is a growing

network of organisations that are working on various aspects of climate change adaptation and using the relevant

science to inform decision making.

As leaders in climate change adaptation planning in South Australia, URPS is working with a range of different

stakeholders in different regions in the State. Central to our approach is bringing together climate change

science with our understanding of how peoples’ values shape their behaviours and, therefore, their response

to a changing climate.

If you are interested to hear more about this fascinating and important area of work, please contact us.

• Bridging the gap between science and decision making

• Think design deliver – planning reform in SA

• South Australia’s first regulated tree ERD court appeal

• Study tour of North America

• Regulation of the liquor industry

• Congratulations Alan

• 10 Years of helping to shape great communities

inside

Planning Matters

SPRI

NG

SUM

MER

2013

1

Decisions regarding climate change impacts have significant ramifications for some major infrastructure such as airports.

Left To Right - Mark Siebentritt (Seed), Mark Rogers (Colonial First State), Nicole Halsey (URPS)

Think design deliver – planning reform in SA

Continuous improvement in all areas of South Australian life, including the SA planning system, is critical to realising the

vision of the SA Strategic Plan. While there are many positives elements of the SA planning system, the range of issues

and opportunities for improvement are vast.

We have been heavily involved in a series of workshops with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

designed to inform the preparation of numerous discussion papers for the Expert Panel on

Planning Reform (part of Stage 2: Listening/Scoping).

This work has caused us to reflect upon the criticism often levelled at the

SA planning system regarding insufficient differentiation and streaming of

development proposals according to their complexity/likely impacts. This leads to

over-regulation. As part of our work with DPTI, we revisited the Commonwealth

Government Productivity Commission’s research report entitled “Performance

Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development

Assessments” (May 2011). This report states that:

“on a per capita basis in 2009-10, Queensland councils appeared to have the highest level of resourcing (in terms of staff levels and planning expenditure) but also incurred the highest median level of expenditure per development assessed, and approved the smallest median number of developments per staff. In contrast, South Australia incurred the lowest median expenditure and assessed the highest median number of developments per staff. These results probably reflect differences between the two states. South Australia requires the largest proportion of applications to be assessed by councils, while Queensland councils have adopted a sophisticated risk-based approach to development with fewer applications requiring formal council assessment. Councils in other states fall in between these approaches with most allocating basic applications to fast tracks”.

In recent years, South Australia has been steadily moving away from an approach whereby ‘everything needs approval,

except for a couple of things that don’t’, towards a model where ‘many things that satisfy the core policy objectives don’t

require approval or only minimal assessment’. We wonder whether the reformed planning legislation could incorporate

greater sophistication in terms of proportionate assessment responses to different scales of development.

We eagerly await Stage 3 of the process in the first half of 2014, which involves the Expert Panel developing options,

exploring/discussing these options and creating some proposals for reform. Please note that the observations above are

those of URPS and should not be interpreted to represent the position of DPTI.

South Australia’s first regulated tree ERD court appeal

URPS Associate Matthew King recently gave expert evidence in relation to an appeal for the Town of Gawler regarding

a proposal to remove two regulated trees (Savoy Developments Pty Ltd v Town of Gawler). The two trees are healthy,

indigenous to the local area and notable visual elements in the locality and, therefore, provide important aesthetic and

environmental benefit so as to warrant retention under the Development Plan.

The appellant pursued removal on the basis “development that is reasonable and expected would not otherwise be possible”. However, Matthew’s view was that the affected sites could accommodate a generous dwelling footprint that met the Complying conditions of the Development Plan and were also Residential Code compliant, suggesting that “reasonable and expected” development could occur without having to remove the regulated trees. The Court concurred with Matthew’s position and the appeal was dismissed.

The Court did not consider construction costs to be a relevant factor in this case. It also did not find that the land was so

constrained so as to require an unusual dwelling shape or form or that only a custom design house could be located on

the proposed allotments.

This is the first judgment relating to regulated trees since the two tiered regulated/significant tree classification was

introduced, providing greater clarity as to types of residential development that is considered ‘reasonable and expected’

when considering the removal of regulated trees.

2Planning Matters

www.urps.com.au

Tree 1

Tree 2

RDS 10m

RDS 9m

RDS 12m

22.25

22.3325.65

25.48

35.9

4 957m

1m

779m

38.4633.7

2 27.41

10.4

372m

6.75

6.0

6.82

10.4

6.75

INDICATIVE SITE PLAN 2Appendix D

Possible Building Footprint

39 Hillier Road, Evanston Gardens

for Town of Gawler

11.75

4.0

300m

6.5

6.0

13.47

9.27

23.9

8

5.97

5.5m

3.00

m

1m

Suite

12/

154

Fulla

rton

Road

, Ros

e Pa

rkm

ail@

urps

.com

.au

08 8

333

7999

e:t:

1:250 @ A43 April 2013Ref: 2013-0065

RDS: Residential Dwelling Setback

0 10

LOT 42LOT 43

Lot 42 P.O.S Approximately

374.53mLot 43 P.O.S Approximately

317.39m

The Regulated Trees in question

Image courtesy of DPTI

Study tour of North America

The recent UDIA Study Tour of North America reinforced and/or challenged many of our existing ideas about medium-to-high density infill development. Some of our lasting impressions and potential tools for use here include:

• Significant Federal Government investment in affordable housing through taxation credits has resulted in some high

density infill development that is of extraordinarily high quality. It has also encouraged long-term investment from

major organisations that have an ongoing interest in managing these buildings for tenants and instituting high-quality

maintenance regimes.

• Multi-deck car parking is a key feature of Transit Oriented Development, but considerable effort is made to hide it from

the main streets with a combination of clever siting, good design and significant landscaping. This multi-deck parking also

provides opportunity for redevelopment should it not be required at some point in the future.

• Timber framed multi-storey buildings up to 6 storeys high results in construction efficiencies and, hence, cost savings

during the construction process.

• There are numerous ways to design façades and the upper storeys of buildings so that they are attractive and do not

overpower the street. Building height is not as important as how the building ‘hits the ground’ and interacts with the

public realm. Carefully considered and well-maintained landscaping in between the public and private realm is also

fundamental to the perceptions of amenity.

• Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) - defined areas where businesses pay an additional levy in order to fund projects

within the district’s boundaries – have been successful place making entities, undertaking pedestrian and streetscape

enhancements, as well as cleaning streets, providing security and marketing services.

We’d like to acknowledge Terry Walsh at the UDIA for coordinating such a varied and informative tour.

Regulation of the liquor industry

The Liquor Licensing Court is charged with managing the dispensing of liquor to ensure that the public enjoys access to

liquor of a range, pricing and convenience which is acceptable by contemporary standards (per Section 58 of the Act).

The control exercised by the Liquor Licensing Court underpins historic controls over licensed premises and may be seen by

some as counter-competitive, there being no other State in Australia where this jurisdiction operates. At the same time,

the Court has also served, with varying degrees of success, to protect hotels/restricted licensed clubs/restaurants from the

expansion of major supermarket bottle shops whose range and cost competitiveness cannot be matched in the market place.

The determination of what constitutes a community of interest, or locality of the proposed new licensed premises, is often pivotal in the Court judgement in these matters. As planners, the Court has placed reliance on our understanding of what makes a community ‘tick’ and the area of influence of the place where the license is applied for.

We are expected to bring an understanding of planning and strategic development influences. We also have to properly

analyse community profile data, road and other movement network information, as well as providing an expert view of what

makes up a ‘locality’ and the influences of access and convenience. Community preferences and significant geographic/road/

physical barriers come into play, as does the mobility of the population being served. For example, it is commonly accepted

that country people accept much longer travel times than those living in metropolitan areas.

As with anything of serious value, liquor licenses are often hard fought. It is a tough jurisdiction in which URPS has extensive

experience.

3

SPRI

NG

SUM

MER

20

13

10 years of helping to shape great communities

Turning 10 this year has prompted some reflection at URPS. The pride we feel has been matched with an overwhelming sense of gratitude to our colleagues, clients, friends and family who have helped us to realise many of our ambitions in our first 10 years.

We have always viewed our clients as being an extension of us - the challenges they face become ours until they are resolved. URPS’ 20 PIA Awards over the past 10 years have only been possible because our clients trust us with their most challenging and interesting work, and we continue to enjoy being part of projects that count.

So, as we focus on the next decade, we pause to say thank you for a terrific first 10 years. We look forward to working with you in the future on shaping even greater communities.

4Planning Matters

SPRI

NG

SUM

MER

20

13

www.urps.com.au

Our people

Marcus Rolfe marcus@urps.com.au Grazio Maiorano grazio@urps.com.au Angela Hazebroek angela@urps.com.au Nicole Halsey nicole@urps.com.auAlan Rumsby alan@urps.com.auGerald Ward gerald@urps.com.auJulie Lewis julie@urps.com.auGeoff Butler geoff@urps.com.auAnna Pannell anna@urps.com.auVictoria Haupt victoria@urps.com.auMatthew King matthew@urps.com.auMichael Arman michael@urps.com.auSimon Channon simon@urps.com.auDavid Burrow david@urps.com.auRosanna Palumbo rosanna@urps.com.auDonna Ruggiero donna@urps.com.auFil Russo fil@urps.com.au

Our place

Suite 12154 Fullarton RoadRose Park South Australia 5067(Corner of Alexandra Avenue)

Phone 08 8333 7999 Email mail@urps.com.au Web www.urps.com.au

The content of this newsletter is for general information only. It should not be relied on and action which could affect your organisation should not be taken without appropriate professional advice.

Prin

ted

on 1

00%

rec

ycle

d A

ustr

alia

n M

ade

pape

r (IS

O14

001

Envi

ronm

ent

Man

agem

ent

Cer

tifica

tion:

FSC

rec

ycle

d);

Prin

ted

usin

g so

y ba

sed

inks

and

mat

eria

ls r

ecyc

led

More information

Copies of this and our previous newsletters are available on our website at www.urps.com.au If you would like to discuss the information contained in any of our newsletters in further detail please don’t hesitate to contact us on 8333 7999 or drop into our offices at Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road, Rose Park.

Alan and Jenny Rumsby

Congratulations Alan

Alan Rumsby, a Director at URPS, was elevated to Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia at the recent PIA SA Awards for Excellence 2013.

Alan is one of South Australia’s most experienced and respected planning consultants, with a distinguished career spanning some 37 years. A true ‘all rounder’, Alan is equally skilled at leading broad-level strategic planning and master planning, as well as development policy (including Development Plan Amendments), and development facilitation/assessment.

He particularly enjoys giving planning advice on development projects and land development concepts, stemming from his days managing major residential subdivision projects for the SA Housing Trust. He also continues to put his expertise to the test giving expert evidence in some 80 appeals and counting, making him one of South Australia’s most experienced planners in ERD Court matters and other licensing jurisdictions.

Alan is widely respected for bringing people together in the pursuit of great development outcomes – he is always warm and respectful, he listens carefully, he responds thoughtfully and he works tirelessly in all his interactions throughout the planning process. Please join us in congratulating Alan, as well as Stephen Smith from the Adelaide & Mt Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, for achieving this significant peer recognition.