Integrating regional settlement with

rural land protection: scenarios for

peri-urban planning

Michael Buxton

RMIT University

Nature of peri-urban change

• Peri-urban areas are among the fastest growing

regions in many countries

• In US, peri-urban land comprises up to one third of

total land area; 30% of new housing in peri-urban

areas, moving to one third of total US population

• U.K. Europe, loss of agricultural land to housing 2.5

per cent in the decade from 1970

• China and India transforming small-medium towns and

cities into mega settlements

• Chinese and western capital imposing high rise and

suburban development model into African countries

Why protect peri-urban areas?

• Traditional reasons: to preserve landscapes; protect

water quality and supply; protect primary production

and other natural resources deposits of minerals and

other resources and other rural activities.

• Emerging issues: food security, health, climate

change and impact of peak oil

• Precaution: in times of rapid fundamental change,

maintain options, act cautiously, anticipate needs

• Cities and hinterlands: renewed focus for resilience

– but will we recognise this need in time?

Loss of

peri-urban

values

will lead to

catastrophic

impacts

this

century

Varying UGB has led to land speculation

Context

• Australia’s urban

primacy

• 2/3rd of popul. in 5

largest cities

• Growth of 1.5-1.8%

• Population increase

from 23m in 2013

to 42-46m in 2056

• Only 15% live in in

medium sized cities

with population

from 100,000 to 1m

Source: State of Australian Cities

(2012)

Context

• Lack of Regional

planning in Australia

• Some examples:

• DURD 1972-75

• SEQ Regional Plan

• Melbourne regional

planning 1970s

SEQ 2009-31 regional plan

Melbourne peri-urban region

• Melbourne,

population 4.2m;

Australia 2013

population of

23m moving to

42-46m, 2056

• Melbourne’s

peri-urban region

– inner and outer

areas:

population

700,000

Regional planning - regulation

• In 1970s, State government used planning

system: limit urban growth, protect farming in

Mornington Peninsula and Upper Yarra Valley

• 1971 SPP3 and SPP4

• Legislation to protect natural values

- ie 1976 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong

Ranges Act

• Regional authorities and strategy plans to

implement SPPs and legislation

Potential for new industries

• Viticulture: Yarra Valley area under vineyards

- 1973/74: 43 ha and 17 vineyards

- By 1998: 114 vineyards and 50 wineries,

with 2,500 ha cultivated with an annual

turnover of $100 million

• Tourism and recreation

- By 1998, 600,000 visitors annually

• Other industries developed – ie education

Case study region

Purpose: Scenario Modelling

What will happen?

The continuation of current trends, conditions and

policies to 2040 - business as usual - in rural areas

and townships

What can happen?

Alternative scenarios that describe possible future

states – then backcasting to achieve these through

alternative policy and regulatory levers

Method

Alternative scenarios: two spatial scales

• redirect growth from rural-residential and residential

development from rural areas to townships

- (Rural Preservation Scenario) require minimum

subdivision lot size to qualify for dwelling approval

- tenement control of 25 ha

- tenement control of 40 ha

• Consolidate township growth within regional

townships on a number of scenarios; accommodate

transferred and increased demand

• shift development to smaller townships

Method

Relate land supply and demand

• Compile existing rural and township land

supply

• Compare this to development pressure

spatially

• Assume that land supply influences demand

and can be transferred spatially

• Develop alternative rural policies to protect

natural resources – landscape ecology

approach

Extensive rural land fragmentation – 87,000

dwelling capacity (vacant lots + subdivision)

Development capacity “BAU–rural preservation scenario” by zone

87,000 additional dwellings (BAU); 112,000 additional dwellings (RP)

Achieved through transfer and promotion of high densities in TZ, UGZ, CDZ

in RP compared with BAU.

Use of tenement control

Development capacity – BAU –

tenement control

Findings - rural

Legend

Developed Parcels (2010 - 2040)

No Development Capacity

Crown Land & Non RuralResidential Landscape

Undeveloped Capacity

Urban Centre or Locality

Findings - BAU development

• BAU scenario: by 2040, costly, fragmented

landscapes

• Pressure greatest on regional centres and

infrastructure corridors closest to the

metropolitan fringe, and coast

• Doing nothing not an option because of past

land fragmentation

• Need spatial and institutional integration;

cross-sectoral policy measures

Findings - townships

• 3 urban

development

scenarios

• BAU (greenfield)

• Infill

• Fringe density

• For Bendigo,

regional centre of

86,000, 160km

North West of

Melbourne

General approach: Housing Futures

1.Greenfield / broadhectare areas:

• Business as usual

• Higher density

2. Infill in established areas:

• Dual occupancy

• Activity centres

• Incremental infill

• Redevelopment on non-residential land

3. Increased development in town core

Key findings: Bendigo greenfield/broadhectare

Parent lots over 1 hectare

BUSINESS AS USUAL

Land supply: 770

hectares

Overall yield at trend

densities: 9,240

dwellings

- Residential zones

- No overlays

- Parcels over 1

hectare

- Trend density: 12

dwellings per

hectare

HIGHER DENSITY

SCENARIO: 25 dwellings

per hectare: 19,250

Increased dwelling

supply compared to

BAU: 10,010

Key findings: Bendigo greenfield business as usual

Edmarna Meadows, Villawood

Lot sizes: 1,500 – 2,332sqm

R1 Zone

Development

Station

Further project stage: development types

Lot: 10 x 30m (300sqm)

Height: 1 (or 2 storey)

Bedrooms: 3

Parking: 1 space in garage

Open space: 40-90sqm, back yard

Floor area: 1 storey – 160sqm

2 storey – 215sqm

Net density: 21 dwellings per hectare

Lot: 12.5 x 20m (250sqm)

Height: 1 (or 2 storey)

Bedrooms: 2 or 3

Parking: 1 or 2, in garage

Open space: 35-50sqm, back yard

Floor area: 1 storey – 100sqm

2 storey – 170sqm

Net density: 24 dwellings per hectare

Key findings: Bendigo dual occupancy

Land supply: 555

hectares

Overall yield with two

dwellings per parcel:

6,976

(two dwellings on vacant

lots, one additional on

occupied lots)

Average density: almost

13 dwellings per hectare

Parent lot 700 to 1,000sqm

Key findings: Bendigo activity centres

Land supply: 322

hectares

Overall yield at 35

dwellings per

hectare: 11,270

R1Z and MUZ parcels over 150sqm within 400m

of business zones

Further project stages: development types

Lot: 20.1 x 25.9m (522.36sqm)

No. of units: 4

Height: 2 storey, 7m

Bedrooms: 2

Parking: 2 spaces in rear garage

Open space: Private courtyards, balconies

Floor area: 155sqm / dwelling

Density: 75 dwellings per hectare

Street

Lane

Neigbouring

one storey

building

Neigbouring

one storey

building

Site boundary

Residential use

Communal open space

Private open space (courtyard)

Car parking

Building context

Carpark access

Indicative carpark location

Lot: 4.5 x 30m (135sqm)

Height: 2/3 storey

Bedrooms: 2

Parking: 1 space in garage

Open space: 35sqm, back yard

Floor area: 110sqm

Net density: 39 dwellings per hectare

Further project stages: development types

Lot: 28 x 5.5m (155sqm)

No. of units: 7

Height: 4 storey, 12.5m

Bedrooms: 1

Parking: Only for two wheels

Open space: balconies 8sqm

Floor area: 55sqm / dwelling

Density: 460 dwellings per hectare

Lot: 27 x 14.5m (390sqm)

No. of units: 12

Height: 4 storey, 14m

Bedrooms: 2

Parking: 1 spaces in garage under building

Open space: balconies 8-11sqm

Floor area: 61 – 77sqm / dwelling

Density: 387 dwellings per hectare

Key findings: Bendigo incremental infill

Land supply: 344

hectares

Overall yield at 35

dwellings per hectare:

12,040

R1Z parcels rated green by CoGB

Key findings: Bendigo non-residential land

infill

Land supply: 275

hectares

Overall yield at 35

dwellings per hectare:

9,625

Non-residential zones parcels rated green

by CoGB

Key findings: Bendigo

Greenfield / broadhectare Infill Core

SCENARIO FUTURE

GREENFIELD

DEVELOPMENT

DUAL

OCCUPANCY

INFILL

ACTIVITY

CENTRE INFILL

RESIDENTIAL

INFILL

OTHER

REDEVELOPMENT

CBD

DEVELOPMENT

Maximum yield

possible on all

parcels over one

hectare

Two lot

development on

existing occupied

and vacant

residential parcels

between 700 and

1,000sqm

Development

occurs on sites

within 400m radius

of business zoned

parcels

Development

occurs on

residential sites

identified as

appropriate for

development by

CoGB

Residential

development occurs

on infill sites outside

CBD and zoned

Business and

Industrial

Development on

sites determined

as appropriate, to

heights defined by

CBD Strategy

Supply 770 hectares

555 hectares from

6,756 parcels (220

vacant)

322 hectares from

4,154 parcels

344 hectares from

1,129 parcels

275 hectares from

209 parcels

14.4 hectares

from 138 parcels

Density 25 dwellings per

hectare

almost 13

dwellings per

hectare

35 dwellings per

hectare

35 dwellings per

hectare

35 dwellings per

hectare

Average 140

dwellings per

hectare

Dwelling

supply

19,250 6,536 + 440 =

6,976

11,270 12,040 9,625 2,000+

Sample of

lots available

Bendigo’s total dwelling supply = 62,561

Key findings: Rural centres have capacity to take up

significant proportion of Melbourne’s growth

Implications

• Land tenure is the key

factor

• Rural development

capacity of existing small

rural-residential lots will

be exhausted by 2025 in

areas closest to

Melbourne and along

major transport corridors

• Spatial planning

techniques could prevent

further land

fragmentation

• Reduction of the

existing supply of

small rural lots

(backcasting)

• Strong controls

over subdivision

and a transfer of

demand for future

rural land holdings

to regional

settlements

Policy responses

• Requires selection of a desired future and use of

measures designed to achieve this alternative future.

• But Australian deregulated planning systems are:

- enabling and increasingly non-regulatory

- based on vertically and horizontally fragmented

institutions and sectoral policy

- based on incremental, ad hoc approvals towards

no defined end

• Victorian deregulated governance led to dismantling

of integrated metropolitan and regional policy