Mark Basham

2022 candidate for City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
Heritage survey responses.

Do you think that Councils and community members need to have a greater voice in planning and development decisions affecting their local area?
Having over 30 years experience in local government, I know as far as State Governments go, my voice doesn't count. However, as the new State Government seems intent on asking us for our opinions, again, I shall retain a veneer of suspension of disbelief until the outcome, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised by a planning and development assessment system that is quality focussed, not designed to pander to the cashed up development lobby. As I cannot believe that the State Government will ever give up planning powers again, perhaps the best outcome is that they handle them completely and Councils have no say at all in even processing the most basic application so we are no longer blamed for shit development controls and angry residents ask why we approve developments we are legally obliged to approve as they meet current planning rules. In a perfect world, each Council should be responsible for its own local planning rules and processes. I am told by State Government bureacrats that will never happen as Councils will find themselves bound by the NIMBYs. The thought that we could have genuine discussion about the best way to develop local areas with the community does not seem to occur to these people.
What role should Councils play in protecting local heritage places from demolition or inappropriate development?
In the perfect world, see above. Heritage is a very subjective area of the built environment - do we protect good looking old buildings, those that have a history, or just those that look good? Do we include heritage items that are not just human built, but natural items too like strands of trees, or a particular park or even a section of beach? I am happy to include any significant item in a heritage register, but if the Minister can write them off with the stroke of a pen, what is the point? Like the PDI Act, I cannot believe that any State Government will ever give Councils heritage controls back. For what it's worth, I believe each Council should do its own heritage rules based on statewide controls.
How would you seek to improve protections for heritage places in your area?
Ask for them in the PDI Act review. And hope.
We rarely see new places added to local heritage listings. Why do you think this is?
Rarely new places are added for two main reasons. There are not a lot of new places to add as previous reviews included most (but certainly not all) relevant places and secondly, owners of proposed heritage listed places ususally fight to the death to prevent the heritage listing of said property. It is just too hard.
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?
The main issue in my immediate area is that the previous idiot Minster for Planning overturned a resident supported Developer Initiated Plan Amendment Report that included medium density residential development, and installed a Minister Initiated Plan Amendement Report, despite over 60 letters opposing it, bringing in high density residential proposals and other specific changes locals did not want. I am hoping that the review will see an overturning of this awful decision. I ackowledge a conflict of interest on this one as I live next door to the rezoned area, a property I bought under the previous rezoning. My changes to the PDI Act would include making some basic development controls mandatory rather than "should" and adding 3 levels of community consultation - 1. Immediately Adjacent 2. Near Vicinity and 3. Greater Significance. 1. woud be for dwellings and outbuildings that could affect adjacent neighbours 2. would be for developments that could affect the amenity of the local area 3. for really big developments that deserve to have a closer look at it and let anyone with an interest have a say. As for other changes, I am intending to sit down once the elections are out of the way and go through the development provisions of the PDI Act and rewrite them - I don't have time now to do that.
What are the impacts of infill development in your area? What changes would you seek in the rules around infill development?
I actually live in an infill development (former backyard of a 1960s housing development). It is a great location for me and I love it - small home, small yard and a large park across the road. We have lots of on road parking (unless there is a big function on across the road) and we are also surrounded by large trees on private land and public land. On the whole though, I get countless complaints about the lack of parking on the roads, the noise as people are living closer to the roads, and each other! and the need for quality open space nearby. I represent one of the most infilled areas of Adelaide and even the people buying and living in these properties join in the complaints. What is worse is that successive State Governments blame Councils for approving them!!!! Infill development is needed - but it must be quality both in built form and design. We also need infrastructure that can cope with it. That has not happpened.
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?
That is a policy that goes against current urban consolidation policies so is a pipe dream.
How should the community be informed and involved in decisions about new developments?
See above.
Do you think there is adequate tree canopy across your local government area?
No. We have dreadful coverage. However, it seems that many residents believe that trees are for every piece of land but theirs and urban consolidation means that large trees are certainly not compatible - I could not fit one on my property even though I have 2 palm trees I inherited. Our Council has an ambitious target to increase that canopy in a holistic campaign including private and Council land but we find for every tree we plant, the State Government cuts down 3 on their land.
How would you like to see significant and regulated trees in your area protected from removal?
Many, if not most, local residents strongly support the removal of tree retention controls. That view is probably not shared by the residents of many other Council areas. But, that is the popular view here. I am contacted weekly by people wanting to have trees cut down on private property and on Council land. For trees to be protected, hardly hear a murmur apart from people who don't live in my area. So, vexed issue here. Support the majority view, or....?
What involvement should Councils have in decisions about protecting or removing significant and regulated trees?
I do believe it should be left at local level.
What actions would you advocate to slow or mitigate the impacts of climate change in your local government area?
We have done so much work on this area, so please see it for yourself at Adapt West.
What issues are there with traffic and parking in your area?
Too many speeding cars, hoons and not enough on street parking. I went to a public meeting yesterday where residents - mostly Gen Zs - wanted to put car parks over the top of existing reserves because the State Government shit masterplan decided that in the future everyone would not have a car. Ridiculous.
How could transport options be improved in your area?
Not by ridiculous planning rules that assume 25% of peopole will ride bikes when it is 2% or catch a bus when a very limited local service - which the previous government then suggested removing.
What would your top three priorities be for improving planning policy and outcomes in your local government area?
Rewrite PDI Act design and building quality provisions
Rewrite PDI Act consultation requirements
Make all PDI Act provisions other than State significance be handled by local authority