Harry Seager

2022 candidate for District Council of Mount Barker.
Heritage survey responses.

1. Do you think that Councils and community members need to have a greater voice in planning and development decisions affecting their local area?
   Yes. Better notification and appeal rights such as existed under the previous Development Act should be reintroduced, at a minimum. Community concerns should be able to be more fully aired, proposed development will affect locals more than others an it is they who will be affected by it. They deserve the right to be heard. Trees should be given greater protection, with off set/ SEB payments to more truely reflect loss of habitat. A regulated tree is not the same as two seedlings, nor a significant tree three.

2. What role should Councils play in protecting local heritage places from demolition or inappropriate development?
   Councils can only act in accordance with current PDI Act. Council should have greater discretion in seeking to protect local and other heritage places in line with community expectations. Council should require Development Application for any proposed demolition beyond trivial matters.

3. How would you seek to improve protections for heritage places in your area?
   Ideally demolition should require a development application in all but minor cases. No retrospective applications should be considered without penalty. The “ seek forgiveness not approval” approach should be unacceptable. A higher level of support for heritage properties should be available.

4. We rarely see new places added to local heritage listings. Why do you think this is?
   Council must undertake comprehensive snd onerous process , with ministerial approval to expand places listed, with the process taking many months or years . They cannot simply add one or two places easily Listing provided some protection from unilateral demolition by owner, ensuring at least some assessment of heritage value during development application process

5. How has the Planning and Design Code impacted on the heritage, amenity, and environment of your area? What changes would you seek to the Code?
   Badly . Significantly reduced notification and appeal rights allows proposals to go unnoticed. Protection of urban trees so significantly reduced as to be almost entirely ineffective.

6. What are the impacts of infill development in your area? What changes would you seek in the rules around infill development?
   Most of Mt Barker is green field development , with blocks down to under 170M 2, not infill. Loss of tree canopy and biodiversity, lack of amenity , collapse of private space are consequences shared with current infill development. Higher minimum block sizes, provision of greater private outside space, effective protection of tree canopy and biodiversity

7. Construction of new housing typically uses 30% labour and 70% materials. Renovation of existing housing stock typically uses 70% labour and 30% materials. What policy changes would you like to see made to encourage people to renovate, rather than demolish and build anew?
   Higher levels of support for heritage places through funding opportunities. All demolition to require development approval , above trivial matters Demolition should require deconstruction and potential reuse of material rather than mere destruction and dumping, adding in effect value to what currently exists.

8. How should the community be informed and involved in decisions about new developments?
   At a minimum notification and appeals processes of previous Development Act should be reinstated.

9. Do you think there is adequate tree canopy across your local government area?
   Canopy declines during development but increases as residential areas age. Issue is largely loss of mature endemic trees and replacement by introduced species which may not provide habitat for diverse fauna.

10. How would you like to see significant and regulated trees in your area protected from removal?
    Yes, I would ! Current PDI and Native VegetationActs fail to protect these trees, offset/ SEB payments are pitiful. Replacing trees weighing many tons with 3 or 2 seedlings respectively is truely pathetic, and an insult . Offsets should have effect of replacing lost habitat in area of loss, not be consumed by process or plantings in some other area.

11. What involvement should Councils have in decisions about protecting or removing significant and regulated trees?
    More! Councils should be able to veto some proposals on biodiversity, habitat or canopy grounds, to reflect concerns of community.

12. What actions would you advocate to slow or mitigate the impacts of climate change in your local government area?
    Slow? Hardly a realistic ambition. Provision of safe, effective public transport using renewable fuel vehicles since transport is , after electricity generation, the next , easiest way to reduce CO 2 emissions

13. What issues are there with traffic and parking in your area?
    Poor planning and infrastructure provision by State government, especially in relation to rapid expansion of Mt Barker under 2010 Development Plan

14. How could transport options be improved in your area?
    Funding and upgrades to Adelaide Road and Heysen Boulevard. Expansion of greater public transport options and availability within district and into metropolitan area. Expansion of Keoride service

15. What would your top three priorities be for improving planning policy and outcomes in your local government area?
    Reinstatement of Notification/appeal rights
    Funding to complete Heysen Boulevard
    Council to increase/determine minimum block sizes