POLITICAL HOT POTATO has sprouted in Adelaide's south. Seaford Meadows, as it's known, is the centre of a debate about where the bucks stops on the crucial issue of getting urban planning right.
Seaford Meadows - a 132-hectare parcel of land bound by Seaford and Commercial roads, with the Onkaparinga Estuary to its north and east - is a logical development site. Backing the coastal suburbs of Port Noarlunga South and Seaford, with easy access to South Rd and the Southern Expressway, it represents a strategic infill, capable of housing more than 6000 people.
The City of Onkaparinga says that's the equivalent of adding the population of Walkerville to a region where resources are already stretched. It wants infrastructure and standards for environmental sustainability to be prescribed by the government before the land's release.
"The government should halt the planned sale of the land until a comprehensive strategic planning process covering services and facilities is completed," says Jeff Tate, Onkaparinga Council's chief executive officer.
"If you look at the sorts of standards that were put in place for developments like Mawson Lakes, plus the Premier's announcement that no child will live in an unsustainable house after 2006 and that we would have the highest standards of environmental requirements for new housing, they don't seem to be reflected in this sale. Looking at the statement of key deliverables, the (Seaford Meadows) proposal seems to be at the lower end of the scale, compared to others."
Onkaparinga Mayor Ray Gilbert believes a golden chance to create a world-class environmentally and socially progressive suburb is about to go begging.
"We want quality planning such as solar hot water services, solar orientation of homes and smart street alignment, plumbed rainwater and green stormwater design. All these things are part of the newly announced Playford development but we've have no guarantees here. All we know is that the developers will be told to submit plans to the council, but we think that's a rather back-ended way of doing it. We would rather have a partnership than an adversarial approach."
Gilbert is also concerned that a report on human services in the Seaford area by consultant Kath Moore in 2003 has not been publicly released by the government. He understands it identifies significant shortcomings. The Adelaide Review's request for a copy was not met by print deadline.
Gilbert's tacit fear is that, without proper planning and facilities, the south risks becoming a social and economic ghetto.
The council's attempt to apply the brakes after many months of negotiation has come as a "genuine surprise" to Land Management Corporation chief executive Wayne Gibbings. The LMC is the state government instrument responsible for managing and developing the state's land assets. Tenders for Seaford Meadows close on March 11, with the successful developer required to enter into a development deed.
Mr Gibbings believes the so-called "key deliverables" in the deed are enough to allay the council's concerns. It requires measures to ensure houses achieve the minimum five-star energy rating; streets and allotments are arranged to ensure buildings can be designed and sited to conserve non-renewable energy sources; and low-water use principles applied. Importantly, developers must submit a detailed master plan and secure "in-principle" acceptance by the Onkaparinga Council.
"The council is the development authority under the Development Act,'' Mr Gibbings said. "All of these things can be negotiated. It comes down to the council's effectiveness in negotiating with developers."
Mr Gibbings says the LMC doesn't want to overregulate at the outset and lose flexibility during the development. "Under the deed, the developer is required to liaise annually on the provision of human services. What's required depends on the pace of growth and many other factors, and we can't predict that at the start."
So is it a case of a nervous council concerned it won't be able to withstand aggressive developers intent on maximising their profits ahead of lofty planning ideals? Gibbings thinks that would be a misjudgement.
"This project's likely to attract interest from major state and national developers. They realise these days the market requires outcomes that 15 years ago nobody thought about. They're producing a product they have to sell to people, and expectations are higher, people are smarter and they know what they want."
Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon reckons the council has been "burnt" by bad developments in the past. "The council is trying to fix old problems in other developments through this process. It's concerned about things that have happened in the past, that aren't occurring with this release."
Conlon acknowledges that Seaford Meadows will differ from Mawson Lakes and Playford, but he believes it needn't be a lesser quality outcome. "It won't be the same because they were unusual requirements in unusual precincts and the government wanted to maintain an involvement there, so we opted for joint ventures." And, as Gibbings points out: "We don't normally undertake joint ventures. We normally sell the land so that private industry can get on with it. They're the experts, not us. In this case, Seaford Meadows is a greenfields site. There's no need for us to be involved."
Conlon says there's nothing to stop the council demanding the highest standards - but that such measures carry costs.
"We need to make sure there's reasonably affordable housing for people. We're told one of our most important priorities is to overcome market failure in the provision of affordable housing . . but this is not a case of being a dumping ground for affordable housing. Just because we do a model green village at Lochiel Park doesn't mean there are no standards elsewhere. In my experience, one has to be very careful about mandating things."
He says that demanding solar hot water can lead to lots of electrically-boosted systems, making it unviable for the gas utility to install mains gas, as without hot water it can't turn sufficient profit. "So the overall effect may be greater emissions than you would have got otherwise. Plus future development could be jeopardised by people with solar services demanding access to sunlight."
Conlon concludes "the truth is the debate between local government and state government as to who should have the responsibility for things is ongoing and will still be going when I'm retired. But I think we all have the same ambition for good public policy in a land release. My view is that the LMC has got it right and the council is jumping at shadows and overreacting to what have been bad experiences in the past."
