Download - new planner
new planner
Planning & Politics March Election | Housing | Infrastructure | Growth
the journal of the New South Wales planning profession
Iss
ue
No
. 10
2
Ma
rch
20
15
2 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
SYDNEY . NEWCASTLE . BRISBANE www.emgamm.com.au
EMM is a leading planning and environmental consultancy. The firm is distinguished by consistent high quality work, integrity and commitment to our clients.
PlanningUrban & RegionalSocialTransport
SERVICES
EnvironmentAboriginal & Historical Heritage
Contaminated Land
EcologyEnvironmental Assessment & ManagementGISGroundwater
PRESIDENT David Ryan MPIA CPP, City Plan
VICE PRESIDENT Marjorie Ferguson MPIA CPP, Canada Bay Council
VICE PRESIDENT (REGIONAL) Scott Anson MPIA, Hunter Development Corporation
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Sarah Hill MPIA, Hill PDA
NSW BOARD REPRESENTATIVE Steve O’Connor FPIA CPP, KDC Consulting and ERM Australia
DIVISION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Brian Elton MPIA, Elton Consulting
Diana Griffiths MPIA CPP, Studio GL
Mike Svikis MPIA CPP, Mike Svikis Planning
Christina Livers MPIA, AEC Group
Jenny Rudolph MPIA, Elton Consulting
David Seymour MPIA CPP, UrPlan Consulting,
Gary Shiels FPIA CPP, GSA Planning
Jocelyn Ullman MPIA, Mitchel Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd
Darren Holloway MPIA CPP, Monteath & Powys Pty Ltd
Geraldine Haigh MPIA CPP, Hopkins Consultants
David Broyd FPIA, David Broyd Consulting Services Pty Ltd
CONTACTING THE COMMITTEE
The NSW Divisional Committee Members are elected by the NSW Membership. Their role is to represent the interests of the Members. They can be contacted through the NSW Divisional Office by phone or email to [email protected]
PIA NSW DIRECTORY 2015
ContentsIssue 83
Contact
PO Box 484, North Sydney NSW 2059
Suite 3, Level 11, 221 Miller St, North Sydney NSW 2060
Tel: 02 8904 1011 Fax: 02 8904 1133
Email: [email protected]
Cover
Cartoon by Cathy Wilcox
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 3
This Issue
New Planner Editorial Board
Andrew Wheeler (Managing Editor), UNSW
Elle Clouston, Place Design Group
Diana Griffiths, Studio GL
Maurene Horder, PIA NSW
Camille Lattouf, Architectus
Alice Reilly, PIA NSW
Rose Saltman, RM Planning
Ken Shepherd, Canada Bay Council
Laura Wynne, UTS
Contributions
The theme of the June 2015 issue is ‘Transport and
Infrastructure’.
If you would like to submit an article or opinion piece for this
issue, please send a 100-150 word abstract to
[email protected] by Friday 20 March.
Please review the New Planner contributor guidelines at:
www.planning. org.au/news/new-planner-nsw
Design and Production
Nationwide Advertising Pty Ltd
Tel: 02 9955 4777 Fax: 02 9955 7055
Email: [email protected]
co
nte
nts
Subscriptions 2015 New Planner is available on subscription to non–members of PIA NSW at a cost of $88 per annum, GST inclusive. Email: [email protected]
Guest Editorial 4
President’s Message 5
Executive Officer’s Reflections 7
Message from the National President 8
Norton Rose Fulbright Review 9
Planning Perspectives 10
In the Courts 11
Opinion: What’s Most Important for 12
Planning in NSW?
Opinion: Economics – The Planner’s Challenge 14
Opinion: Sydney Needs Planning Leadership to 15
Manage Growth but Many Planners are Still
Ticking Boxes
Interview: NSW Liberal Party 16
Interview: NSW Greens 17
PIA NSW’s Election Manifesto 18
Interview: NSW Labor Party 20
Opinion: Time for a Family Reunion on 22
Macquarie Street?
Opinion: Can We Run a Billy Cart Derby? 24
PlannerTech 26
Healthy Built Environments 27
NSW Young Planners 28
International Snippets 30
Snapped 32
Interview: Congress Speaker, Cheong Koon Hean 33
The views expressed in New Planner are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Planning Institute of Australia.
ISSN 1324-8669 PP a233-867-00015
Reprinted with permission of Cathy Wilcox, Fairfax Media.
It was also timely when PIA asked me to introduce the special issue and say a few words on the thorny relationship between planning and politics – it is that time of year when I pay careful attention to politics, as it is a major theme in the final year professional practice course that I run for the Bachelor of Planning Program at UNSW (my alma mater).
Following Cathy Wilcox’s specially commissioned cartoon, this issue kicks off with the NSW President, David Ryan, introducing the recently released PIA NSW ‘Election Manifesto’ (‘Better Planning for Growth’). The Manifesto calls for a commitment to various actions designed to restore community confidence in the planning profession, provide planning leadership and create a proactive planning regime. Many of these actions are discussed in the message from our National President, Brendan Nelson, as well as the issue’s feature articles, opinion pieces and regular columns.
We hear directly from the political parties that responded to PIA’s call for views on the future of planning.
Pru Goward, Minister for Planning, NSW Liberal Party, focuses on planning for Sydney’s future growth, with the new Metro Strategy and the proposed Greater Sydney Commission, as well as acknowledging planning for regional NSW through the ongoing preparation of Regional Growth and Infrastructure Plans. Pru also highlights the Government’s ePlanning and enforcement initiatives.
David Shoebridge, the Planning Spokesperson for the NSW Greens, sees the biggest challenge as introducing new planning laws that are principled and applied with care and consistency, with environment and community at the heart of decisions (and with equal weight to economic considerations). David stresses the need for regional growth and coordinated strategies. He is also critical of the way the Planning
Reform Agenda, and some major projects have been handled.
Jodi McKay, Spokesperson for Planning, NSW Labor Party, sees the need for placing equal value on genuine community engagement, economic activity and environmental responsibility. She also reinforces the need for improved coordination and regional growth.
It is fitting that, in this issue, Maurene Horder, our Executive Officer, celebrates the career of two politicians who led the planning revival when I was in my final year at Uni – Gough Whitlam and Tom Uren – and John Freeman takes us on a walk down Macquarie Street, a place where much of the political action occurs.
For Professor Peter Phibbs (University of Sydney), the ‘most important thing for planning in NSW’ is housing choice and availability, with promise of a new Act and streamlined planning governance. It is enlightening to hear Professor Phibbs and Sean Stephens (Essential Economics) acknowledge that planning should be viewed as one of ‘a highly diverse range of factors’ contributing to housing affordability, rather than the sole culprit.
Chris Johnson, CEO of the Urban Taskforce, stresses the need for continued growth, facilitated by a strong regional focus, cultural change within the profession and improved governance. While I share Chris’ concerns about NIMBY-ism, I disagree with his dismissal of the need for and role of strategic planning at the local level. I witness daily the value-adding exercise of planning and development assessment at this level, especially in denser existing suburbs – alts and ads, local centre revival and industrial development. Harry Quartermain also prompts consideration of an appropriate split between state and local jurisdiction, and as David Winterbottom shows us, such issues are international. Garry O’Dell puts
temporary uses into the mix.
In their regular columns, Steve O’Connor, Peter Williams and John O’Callaghan speak of infrastructure provision – in general, in the courts and into the open data-future. And Norton Rose Fulbright provide a timely run-down of the new Metro Strategy.
For the last decade or so, in my consultancy role, I have been part of the Healthy Planning Movement, promoting continued and improved consideration of health as a central tenet of planning. Professor Susan Thompson (UNSW) and Peter McCue (Executive Officer, Premier’s Council for Active Living), both driving forces in this movement, tell the story of the successful, multi-disciplined push to have specific health-related objectives included in the Planning Bill. Let’s hope that this is boosted in any further review of the NSW Planning System.
And let’s also hope that, whatever the outcome of the NSW election, the spirit of Planning Reform is re-energised and moves beyond the current piecemeal actions. We have an opportunity to create a new, 21st century planning system by incorporating the best of the old system, with its emphasis on sharing power, environmental sustainability and community participation, and the innovative actions proposed in the Planning Bills, such as regional growth plans, revamped Local Plans, and effective and efficient development assessment.
So what of planning and politics? We certainly need to acknowledge the role of our elected representatives, to understand how politics operates and how politicians think. For planners working in the public service, let’s provide the best advice to our politicians, based on planning principles (and sound evidence), particularly in anticipation of change rather than the re-active approach of the last few years. Be frank and fearless, in the true Westminster tradition. For private practitioners, let’s provide the same professional advice to our private clients. As I gear-up for those final year students, it is promising to hear Harry Quartermain, speaking for the Young Planners, express similar sentiments.
It is my pleasure to introduce this special issue of New Planner. Happy voting
Guest EditorialPlanning and Politics
Danny Wiggins FPIA
4 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Welcome to this special issue of New Planner on Planning and
Politics. This is appropriately timed given the recent electoral
volatility in Queensland, Victoria and federally and, of course, the
upcoming NSW State Government election.
ed
itoria
l
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 5
President’s MessagePIA’s NSW Election Wish List
David Ryan MPIA CPP, PIA NSW President
Elections give us all a chance to contribute
to political debate and seek to influence
public policy. As an organisation that has
a respected voice within government and
across the political spectrum, I think it
is important for PIA to use this status to
articulate and strongly argue its case on
issues of importance to our members and
the planning profession generally, in the lead
up to the March State Election.
Accordingly, PIA has recently released an
election ‘manifesto’, called “Better Planning
for Growth” that identifies actions for which
we are seeking commitments from all
aspiring political parties to implement if
elected. A copy of the manifesto is included
in this issue; however, in summary, we have
called for commitments to:
• Introduce a new Planning Act;
• Undertake a complete review of governance
arrangements for NSW planning;
• Implement regional and subregional
plans across the State;
• Improve community engagement in
planning decisions;
• Better integrate land use and
infrastructure planning;
• Improve housing diversity and affordability;
• Rationalise environmental legislation and
policies;
• Quantify the economic value of planning.
Whilst these specific actions are identified, they are all based around three key themes:
• Restoring confidence in NSW planning;
• Providing leadership in NSW planning; and
• Promoting proactive planning in NSW.
We look forward to hearing responses to our ‘wish list’ from all of the major Parties vying for election and we will notify members as and when any such responses are received. They may help you decide on your own voting intentions!
As much as we complain about
politics and politicians, especially
around election time, I suspect most
of us would not swap the privilege
of living in a democratic society for
the alternatives, or readily forgo the
opportunity of having a vote on who
governs our Council, State or country.
NSW Environment and planning team Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Jacinta Studdert Partner, SydneyTel +61 2 9330 8500 jacinta.studdert@ nortonrosefulbright.com
Felicity RourkePartner, SydneyTel +61 2 9330 8665felicity.rourke@ nortonrosefulbright.com
Noni ShannonPartner, SydneyTel +61 2 9330 8346noni.shannon@ nortonrosefulbright.com
NRF
1850
6
Law around the worldnortonrosefulbright.com
In the lead up to the NSW Election, the NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia is
planning system, providing leadership in the planning system and being positive and proactive about setting the planning framework for NSW.
The NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia will continue to engage the major political parties on these issues. The Institute is an apolitical organisation but it is essential that we make a stand on planning issues for the sake of the NSW community, the planning profession and our members.
PIA NSW Better Planning
for growth
PIA NSW advocates that planning for NSW cities and regions requires well managed growth that creates housing diversity, employment together with balanced environmental and social community outcomes.
Sydney should be globally recognised for its competitiveness, innovation, sustainability and liveability.
To be effective in managing the growth, PIA believes that the Government needs to lead the rebuilding of the community’s and the development industry’s trust in the planning profession to provide certainty and clarity to the planning process.
PIA NSW sets three key challenges for the NSW Government for the next four years:
»
» Providing planning leadership and
» Creating a proactive planning regime.
JANUARY 2015
PIA NSW’s Election Manifesto
6 | DECEMBER 2014 | newplanner
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 7
ed
itoria
l
Executive Officer’s ReflectionsVale EG Whitlam AC QC – An Honorary Fellow
Maurene Horder, PIA NSW Executive Officer
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said ‘like no
other prime minister before or since, Gough
Whitlam redefined our country and in doing
so he changed the lives of a generation and
generations to come’. Gough Whitlam died
late last year aged 98.
Awarded an Honorary Fellow by PIA in
2001, he was an esteemed member who
continued his interest in urban development
and planning throughout his life. PIA NSW
would like to remember his contribution to
this state. His views were well articulated –
no more so than in a radio broadcast on the
Macquarie Network on 29 May 1972, when he
spoke on ‘Cities are the Nation’s Problem’.
“Tonight I would like to say something about
a matter which must be a prime priority,
simply because it concerns directly the
overwhelming majority of us. Over 85 percent
of Australians live in cities. We are the
most urbanised people on earth. I want to
emphasise at the beginning that when I talk
about cities, I am not taking just about the
capitals I mean all our cities and centres and
big towns throughout Australia.
Now the remarkable thing about Australia
is that although, as I said, we are
overwhelmingly a nation of city dwellers, the
national government takes no responsibility
at all for our cities. In every comparable
country – the United States, Canada, West
Germany, Britain – the national government
involves itself in urban affairs; but not in
Australia. The Australian Labour Party
believes that it is urgent that the national
government should accept a share of
responsibility for finances and functions in
the places where most of the nation lives.
The idea of national involvement in cities is
one that has been very close to my heart for
many many years. A man’s ideas don’t grow
up in a vacuum. We are all affected by our
own experience. When I was a young boy,
my family moved from Sydney to Canberra
where my father became Crown Solicitor
of the Commonwealth. This meant three
things to me. One, Canberra was and still
is Australia’s only new city, except for
some mining centres, to be created since
federation. Secondly, it is a government
creation, a deliberate considered act by
government; and thirdly, because it was the
national capital, the national government
could not avoid its responsibilities. So to me
the idea of new, deliberately created cities,
with the national government accepting a
municipal role has always been a natural
and proper thing. Then after the war, I
lived in the far southern and later the outer
western suburbs of Sydney, and that’s
where my children were brought up. Now
these areas are typical of the great post-war
urban expansion, with all the problems that
it has brought – soaring land prices, vast
unsewered areas, long distances to work
and schools and hospitals, lack of sporting
and recreational amenities, very often lack of
any true community centre and sometimes
lack of a true community identity. So, these
matters – the whole question of the quality
of life in our cities – have been close to my
thinking for a very practical reason: they’re
part of my own life and my own experience
and part of the life and experience of my wife
and children.
What we have to avoid is the feeling of
fatalism, the feeling that there is nothing we
can do about the sprawl of our cities, the
breakdown of our public transport system,
ever increasing land prices, the sense of
not belonging to any real community which
so many, our young people particularly, are
developing. We can do a lot about it. But we
will only do it if the national government
is prepared to play its part in rebuilding
our existing cities and building new ones,
if the national government is prepared to
give local government a proper share in the
nation’s finances, if the national government
is prepared to assist semi-government
authorities in matters like sewerage and
reticulation, if the national government is
prepared to give the States money to buy and
develop land and sell or lease it at cost.”
The Passing of Another Political Giant –
Tom Uren Ac
Gough Whitlam will be remembered for many
things that shaped our nation, well beyond
connecting the sewerage in the western
suburbs of Sydney. With the election of the
Whitlam Government in 1972, he appointed
Tom Uren the first Minister for Urban and
Regional Development who initiated many
reforms, saving suburbs from freeways and
redevelopment and creating new national
parks and establishing the new cities
program for Albury–Wodonga and Bathurst–
Orange. In 1975, Uren set up the Australian
Heritage Commission and the National
Estate. His recent passing at 93 marks the
end of an era. I had the privilege of working
with both of these inspiring giants, Vale
Gough and Tom
The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott described Gough
Whitlam, Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, as a ‘giant figure’ and
noted that ‘he was only prime minister for three years but those
years changed our nation and, one way or another set the tone for
so much that has followed’.
Gough Whitlam, pictured on the front cover of New Planner (No. 10, October 1992) with Phil Day and Gordon Craig, at the Sidney Luker Memorial Medal Presentation and Lecture.
One of the factors contributing to this
new political norm is the change in the
demographic and generation of our voting
public. Over the past 50 years, the traditional
generation – born prior to World War 2 – has
reduced from 32% to 14% of the voting public
and this number will continue to decline. The
Baby Boomer generation has also peaked
and is declining as a percentage of the
voting public; today, the Baby Boomers only
represent around 25% of voters nationally.
The big emergence in recent years has been
Generation X (1965-1976) and Y (1977-1994)
who collectively make up approximately
40% of the voting public. The increased
sophistication in technology, social media
and the internet largely used by the X and Y
generations means that governments are
now judged on a 24 hour cycle, and access to
information and data has never been better.
Governments that don’t respond and adapt
to the changes in generational expectations
are more likely to suffer consequences at the
ballot box than has been the case previously.
When we consider the nature of this
volatility, it is clear that we need politicians
that are able to balance short-term political
drivers with a “real” long-term vision for
our country in the context of changing
generational expectations. This isn’t an
easy task, but there are some key factors
that will make it easier than it sounds. The
approach being advocated by David Ryan
and the NSW Division Committee is very
proactive and will contribute significantly to
managing this task by restoring community
confidence in the planning system,
providing planning leadership, and being
positive and proactive about setting the
planning framework for NSW.
All members should be asking their
local candidates to commit to these
principles as part of the upcoming NSW
election process. Unfortunately we have
all seen examples of what happens when
planning systems lack leadership, have
outdated frameworks or don’t engender
community confidence. The result is,
invariably, localised planning arguments
that become highly politicised and end up
failing everyone, often with the planner
being caught in the middle. The root of
this problem emerges from the failure of
principles like those outlined above.
At a higher level, there are even more
challenges due to the absence of a
national policy on our future growth and
management of environmental constraints
such as climate change. Further, there is a lack of informed engagement with our communities on managing these often competing objectives. Australia is currently growing by about 500,000 people per year, and to put this into context, we need to deliver the equivalent of a new Newcastle/Maitland every year or a new Wollongong every 6 months! This cannot be done with short-term thinking.
Of course NSW is not a lone ranger when it comes to dysfunctional planning systems or planning reform challenges. Ignoring the lack of leadership federally, I have watched with interest the level of planning reform that is occurring across the nation. With the exception of the Northern Territory, every state and territory in Australia is currently undergoing (or has undergone within the last decade) some form of planning reform. In the case of Queensland, planning reform has been undertaken on two separate occasions in the past decade and, with the formation of a new Government in early February, one wonders whether Queensland is about to commence the “once in a generation planning reform” for the third time in less than 10 years!
The level and extent of planning reform has become necessary in many jurisdictions due to ‘legislative clutter’, political mandates and over regulation, many of which are as relevant to NSW as other states. This may be an oversimplification of some of the primary drivers for reform, but complicated planning systems rarely produce quality outcomes, and more often than not have significant impacts across the profession, community and economy. Whilst there will be many reasons for planning reform, we shouldn’t forget the value of planners and planning to our communities
Brendan Nelson can be contacted at [email protected]
Message from the National President Brendan Nelson MPIA CPP MAICD, National President, Planning Institute of Australia
As NSW leads into the upcoming election in March, I have reflected
on the recent volatility of Australian politics and considered some of
the reasons for this. We have seen two first term state governments
with substantial mandates lose in recent months and further volatility
occurring federally. There are many reasons for this volatility
including localised jurisdictional issues, but it’s more complex than
that and, as such, we are starting to see the emergence of a new norm
where large mandates are meaningless if governments fail to deliver
on promises or cannot articulate and deliver on a future vision.
8 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Want to reach your target audience?Advertise in New Planner
See our advertising rates and guidelines on our website
www.planning.org.au/news/new-planner-nsw or
contact us [email protected] / 02 8904 1011
to discuss the attractive advertising and sponsorship
opportunities on offer.
revie
w
Norton Rose Fulbright ReviewGrowing Sydney – Is Our Planning System Ready?Felicity Rourke, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Jacinta Studdert, Partner Felicity Rourke, Partner Noni Shannon, Partner
A Plan For Growing Sydney
On 14 December 2014, Minister Goward
released the new planning strategy for Sydney,
A Plan For Growing Sydney (the Strategy).
The Strategy is the NSW Government’s 20
year plan for the Sydney metropolitan area,
which identifies four goals for Sydney:
• a competitive economy with world-class
services and transport;
• a city of housing choice with homes that
meet our needs and lifestyles;
• a great place to live with communities
that are strong, healthy and well
connected; and
• a sustainable and resilient city that
protects the natural environment and has
a balanced approach to the use of land
and resources.
The Strategy has a particular focus on
Western Sydney, which is described as “key
to Sydney’s success”, although it applies
to all 41 LGAs in the metropolitan region
bounded by Pittwater, Blue Mountains and
Wollondilly.
Implementing the Strategy across these
LGAs, grouped into six subregions, will
assist in delivering 664,000 additional
homes and accommodating 689,000 new
jobs by 2031, which the Strategy identifies
as being required in Sydney.
The Strategy identifies three planning
principles to guide Sydney’s grow:
• increasing housing choice around
all centres through urban renewal in
established areas;
• stronger economic development in
strategic and transport gateways; and
• connecting centres with a networked transport system.
Few would argue with the Strategy’s vision
for Sydney as a strong global city. The real
question is how we will get there. To this
end, a key feature of the Strategy is the
proposed establishment of the Greater
Sydney Commission.
Greater Sydney Commission
When it was originally announced in
June 2014, Premier Baird said that the
Commission was being established to
“modernise the way the NSW Government’s
major infrastructure and urban planning
priorities are delivered”.1 But at that time
there was little information about how the
Commission would be constituted and what
its role and powers might be.
Shortly after that announcement, concern
was expressed by Local Government NSW
over the perceived lack of consultation with
Councils regarding the Commission.2
More information has now been provided
in the Strategy, which informs us that the
Commission will be the “lead delivery
agency”, and will coordinate and monitor
the delivery of all actions under the Strategy.
The Government intends that this will “effect
a step change in the way the Government’s
urban infrastructure and planning priorities
are delivered across Sydney”.
The Commission will be responsible for
monitoring progress in delivering the
Strategy’s actions. Key components of the
monitoring and reporting will be:
• an annual update which advises the
Government on the progress and delivery
of the Strategy’s actions, and which will
be reported to Parliament;
• a three-yearly Outcomes Report
which provides detailed reporting
against the outcomes in the Strategy
and recommends adjustments to the
Strategy or changes in the infrastructure
priorities, if required; and
• a review of the Strategy every five years
or as required.
The Commission will have a Board with
independent, State agency and local
government representatives, and the
chair of its Board will report directly to the
Minister for Planning.
While the Commission will “coordinate”
by working with Councils, State agencies,
the community and stakeholders in each
subregion, it is unclear whether the
Commission will have a decision-making
role, or indeed whether it will have direct
powers, such as approval or rezoning
powers, either for projects of State or
regional significance, or more broadly.
The precise role of the Commission in
developing and finalising subregional
plans, which form an important part of the
Strategy, is also unclear.
The Commission’s mandate is to work with
Councils and State agencies to ensure
growth is aligned with infrastructure and
“delivered in the right places at the right
time”. One obvious question is whether
there will be a mechanism to enable the
Commission to resolve conflicting priorities
between stakeholders and, if so, how that
will operate in practice. The answer lies
in the still-to-be-released details of the
Commission’s structure. The Strategy
states that legislation to introduce the
Commission will be finalised in mid-2015;
until the Commission is formally in place a
Ministerial Advisory Council will bring key
stakeholders together.
While the Commission has bipartisan
support, the NSW Opposition has
suggested that the Commission should
have stronger powers than those outlined
in the Strategy. Mr Luke Foley, speaking
as Shadow Minister for Planning, said
shortly after the release of the Strategy
that the Commission should be a genuinely
powerful body to take charge of Sydney’s
future – a “star chamber for Sydney”.3
Whatever the outcome of the State
election, planning professionals will be
keenly watching the establishment of the
Commission
Endnotes1 “Greater Sydney Commission to transform our city”, NSW Government media release, 3 June 2014.2 Media release, Local Government NSW, 7 August 2014.3 “The Greater Sydney Commission”, address to the Committee for Sydney, 16 December 2014
With a NSW State election only weeks away, this column examines
the Government’s recently announced metropolitan strategy and
considers the likely debate about its vision for Sydney.
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 9
Planning PerspectivesInfrastructure Reforms
Steve O’Connor FPIA CPP, Partner, Koby Development Consultants & Technical Director, ERM Australia
In mid-2014 Australia’s population was estimated to be 23.5 million. It is likely to reach 31.5 million by 2031. If an extra 8 million people are going to be accommodated over the next 15 years, more infrastructure is certainly going to be needed around the nation. This infrastructure will take the form of schools, hospitals, open space areas, community facilities and transport infrastructure like that pictured.
Much of this growth will take place in NSW. By 2031 Sydney will have a population of around 6 million (it is approximately 5 million now), and the Lower Hunter, Central Coast and Illawarra regions combined are expected to grow by 250,000 people by 2031.
Infrastructure Funding
The economic growth of the last few decades was underpinned by a trend that is now reversing. Australia’s working-age population has had the benefit of the post
war generation but these “baby boomers” are beginning to exit the workforce. The number of people 65 years and older will more than double over the next 25 years. It will increase from 3.2 million in 2012 (14% of Australia’s population) to 6.8 million (20% of Australia’s population) in 2040.
In 1970 there were 7.5 working-age people in Australia for every person over 65 years of age. By 2010 this figure had dropped to just 5. In 2050 it is projected to fall to a meagre 2.7.
This is likely to result in slower economic growth which, in turn, reduces the revenue available to governments. Reduced revenues mean that governments will struggle to fund the infrastructure required to accommodate growth.
Infrastructure Funding Reform
In light of these demographic changes there is an urgent need for reform in the way infrastructure is funded. What form
this may take is uncertain, but we do have some insights into what may be possible thanks to the extensive consultation and review process surrounding the preparation of the Planning Reform White Paper in 2013. The White Paper states:
Infrastructure is fundamental to support growth, productivity and ultimately our standard of living. This infrastructure must be available when required, be delivered efficiently and be fit for the purpose it was required (p. 152).
The White Paper also reveals some major failings of the current system of infrastructure planning, delivery and funding:
Separate government agency infrastructure planning processes have led to disjointed and costly infrastructure delivery. Inconsistent infrastructure requirements, as well as high and uncertain developer contribution costs, have made some developments unaffordable and delayed them proceeding (p. 152).
Uncertainty has plagued infrastructure delivery and has resulted in development projects being abandoned. There is a desperate need for fundamental reform in infrastructure planning, delivery and funding, yet there appears to be little, if any, progress being made in this State, despite the above admission by the NSW Government that the system is broken.
Conclusions
In the final weeks leading into the NSW election, questions need to be asked about not only what new infrastructure projects will be delivered by the elected political party in the next four-year term, but also what innovative thinking is proposed around infrastructure funding models and governance structures.
The White Paper proposed a raft of reforms that aimed to address the shortcomings being experienced in the current NSW planning system in terms of infrastructure planning, delivery and funding. Genuine reforms are clearly required, and it is these reforms which political parties need to be spelling out prior to the election, rather than a wish list of new infrastructure projects that may not gain funding
By the time this issue of New Planner goes to print, the NSW election
will be just weeks away. What normally happens at this stage of the
election cycle is that political parties make all sorts of promises, and
these promises often relate to the provision of new infrastructure.
Transport infrastructure is required to support growth (Source: Ken Shepherd)
10 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
revie
w
In the CourtsNewcastle Revitalisation Proposal DerailedPeter Williams MPIA, Senior Lecturer in Planning, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW
The planning controls were implemented
through an amendment (commenced July
2014) to the Newcastle Local Environmental
Plan 2012 and a Development Control Plan
for the Newcastle City Centre (commenced
October 2014). A related media release
by the Minister for Planning highlighted,
inter alia, that the new planning controls
and 2014 Strategy Update would help
shape the renewal of the Newcastle CBD
by incorporating the NSW Government’s
proposed investment in light rail and other
public transport improvements in the city.
Specifically, key components of the transport
changes associated with the plans for the
Newcastle CBD redevelopment involved
the removal (‘truncation’) of the existing
heavy rail between Wickham and Newcastle
stations, its replacement by light rail, and
provision of a new transport interchange
at Wickham for rail, light rail and buses.
Truncation of the heavy rail line at Wickham
had been announced in December 2012, and
in 2013 the Government announced that light
rail would be introduced into the city centre
between Wickham and Newcastle Beach,
thereby connecting the west and east ends of
the city. As well as greatly improved east-
west connectivity and accessibility, a further
benefit of the proposal was the opportunity to
create new north-south connections across
the heavy rail corridor, and so linking the city
centre with its waterfront.
As described in the July 2014 Strategy
Update, implementation of this component
of the Urban Renewal Strategy involved
commencement of construction of the
new interchange at Wickham in December
2014, with heavy rail truncation at Wickham
scheduled to occur on 26 December 2014.
All this appeared to be on track until the
eleventh hour when, by a summons filed in
the NSW Supreme Court on 19 December
2014, the validity of the proposed railway
closure and envisaged track removal was
challenged. Judgment in this matter – Save
Our Rail Inc v State of New South Wales
by the Minister administering Transport
for New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1875
– was handed down on 24 December
2014. In addition to the Transport Minister,
there were three other respondents
to this litigation – Rail Corporation of
NSW (RailCorp), Transport for NSW and,
significantly, the Hunter Development
Corporation (HDC). Land occupied by the
truncated rail line was transferred by
RailCorp to HDC on 19 December 2014.
There were two substantive claims made by
the plaintiff. The first was that the transfer to
HDC of land owned by RailCorp was invalid
because of the provisions of s 99A of the
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW)
(‘TA Act’). A second claim then arose during
the hearing: even if transfer of the land to
HDC was lawful, s 99A prohibited HDC – as a
“rail infrastructure owner” – from removing
railway track and associated infrastructure.
Section 99A concerns the closure and
disposal of railway lines, and states:
1. A rail infrastructure owner must
not, unless authorised by an Act of
Parliament, close a railway line.
2. For the purposes of this section,
a railway line is closed if the land
concerned is sold or otherwise disposed
of or the railway tracks and other works
concerned are removed.
There had been no Act of Parliament
authorising the closure of part of the rail
line. However, the Court held that, by
being transferred through compulsory
acquisition (albeit agreed to by HDC and
RailCorp and directed by the respective
Ministers), the railway land had not been
“sold or otherwise disposed of” within the
meaning of s 99A. Thus, the transfer did
not constitute a closure of the railway line
as defined by “sold or otherwise disposed
of”, and so was lawful without the need
for Parliamentary consent. Commenting
on this finding, the Court stated that
it was obvious that the land was to be
compulsorily acquired by HDC in order to
bypass the necessity of obtaining an Act of
Parliament authorising the transfer, and
thus has been used as a device to avoid
the requirements of s 99A. The finding on
this matter merely dealt with the validity
of the transfer, and not the substantive
matter in dispute, namely the lawfulness
of the proposed removal of rail track and
associated facilities.
The Court then turned its attention to
whether the HDC, upon transfer of the
land and other assets on the rail line
such as overhead wiring and cabling, all
above ground infrastructure associated
with signalling, boom gates etc., was
rendered a “rail infrastructure owner”
within the meaning of s 99A, and thus
unable to close the line by removing
the tracks and other works without
the authority of an Act of Parliament.
As these assets constituted “rail
infrastructure facilities”, the Court held
that HDC became a rail infrastructure
owner as it was “the person in whom
ownership of rail train facilities is
invested” under the TA Act. As such, HDC
could not remove any railway tracks or
other works without an Act of Parliament
authorising it to do so.
Accordingly, the formal declaration of the
Court was that, by reason of the assets
purchased from RailCorp, HDC was a rail
infrastructure owner within the meaning of
s 99A of the TA Act. An appeal against this
decision has been lodged
Plans for revitalising Newcastle’s city centre have been extant for
several years. These have included the Revitalising Newcastle: City Centre Plan produced in 2006 by the NSW Department of Planning’s
Cities Taskforce, and the Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy
announced by the NSW Government in 2012. More recently an
update of the Strategy was released in July 2014 (Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy 2014 Update) to coincide with planning controls
approved to guide the redevelopment of the Newcastle CBD.
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 11
12 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Get Over the Nonsense About the Evils
of Planning
As an economist I cannot believe the
nonsense that has been written about
the impact of the planning system on
the housing market and, in particular,
housing supply. For instance, a number
of submissions during the NSW Reform
process in 2011 talked about the evils
of the NSW EP&A Act and its impact
on levels of dwelling approvals and
construction in NSW. My favourite quote is
from NSW Treasury:
Available evidence suggests that the NSW
Planning System, as the central system
facilitating land use and development
in New South Wales, could contribute
to the following outcomes in economic and affordability indicators: A significant downturn in housing supply over the last decade that cannot be explained by lagging population growth or Gross State Product.1
Dwelling approval data from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that since
these submissions were written, the NSW
planning system is now delivering over
50,000 approvals per annum (ABS Cat No.
8731.0). Amazingly, the same old clapped
out planning system has increased its
approvals from 33,540 in 2010-2011 – an
increase of about 55% (see Figure 1).
It is no mystery what has been driving
this change – it is a “P” word but it’s not
“planning”, it’s “price”, and particularly,
price rises.
As demonstrated most recently when
the Reserve Bank once again lowered
the cash rate (to 2.25%), the promise of
lower mortgage payments enables home
purchasers – investors and households
alike – to pay more, thus stimulating price
rises in locations of high demand. Since
2011, the size of mortgage payments
needed to support a house purchase has
shrunk as a result of a decrease in the
cash rate from 4.75% in the beginning of
October 2011 to 2.5% in August 2013. In
other words, the mortgage payment for
many households is the price signal which
is the most important for them when
considering their purchasing options.
The significant lift in dwelling approvals
over this period of falling interest rates
demonstrates that the NSW planning
system is responding to these price
signals.
Obviously, more could be done, with the
recent enthusiasm for reform presenting
an important opportunity for a new,
21st century Planning Act, and perhaps
streamlining planning governance. But
if we want to focus on maintaining this
surge in new dwelling applications we
need to think creatively about how we
can maintain development activity once
the current low interest rate cycle ends,
and purchasers are faced with higher
interest rates. Unfortunately many
property sector advocates just keep
turning out the same old tired story
about the evils of planning.
What Are We Going To Do About Housing
Affordability – How About a Plan?
The surge in dwelling approvals has been
greeted with excitement by NSW politicians
(who are keen to take the credit). For
example, the Minister of Planning put out
a press release in early-February saying,
‘increased housing supply means there are
more options for home buyers, and puts
downward pressure on the cost of a new
home’ (emphasis added).2
Well, if increased housing supply is the
NSW Government’s only plan to contain
What’s Most Important for Planning in NSW?Peter Phibbs, Chair of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Sydney
Providing adequate housing in Sydney at a range of price points, with
enough housing choice to address the variety of housing needs in a
global city, is one of the major challenges facing Sydney and a hot
topic in the lead up to the State election. Rather than all sections
of the property industry, including planners, coming together to
address this significant issue, we waste a lot of effort dealing with
partisan claims and propaganda dressed up as “evidence”. We
should be able to do better. I would suggest we could take two
important actions in 2015.
Figure 1: NSW dwelling approvals by quarter 2009-2014 (Source: ABS Cat No. 8731.0)
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 13
op
inio
n
Sydney housing prices, I hope they have
a Plan B. Sydney is now leading the
country in terms of house price growth
(see Figure 2). The ability to sustain a
functional global city is being threatened
by these surging house prices.
Whilst increasing housing supply is
clearly very important – especially for
renters who are starting to see some
decreases in rents in inner Sydney areas
– we need a more comprehensive policy.
Other global cities like London and New
York have detailed and well-funded
strategies aimed at increasing the supply
of affordable dwellings. For example,
Mayor de Blasio in New York released
at the end of 2014 a comprehensive
strategy to increase the supply of
affordable dwellings in New York by
200,000 dwellings over a ten-year period.
Much of the increase in new affordable
dwellings in New York is targeted at urban
renewal areas. Increasing the supply
of affordable housing as part of urban
renewal programs is also an opportunity
for Sydney. If the community could see
some housing diversity in these renewal
programs, especially if there was some
housing opportunities for their children
who are currently “ageing in place” in
baby boomer households, there might be
some more community enthusiasm for
urban renewal. But we need a serious
affordable housing plan! More press
releases are not going to do it
Endnotes
1 For a detailed review of the ‘evidence’ in their submission, see the paper in Australian Planner written with my colleague Nicole Gurran (Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 232-242). What is really amazing is that in an organisation with a lot of economists, no one thought about the connection between supply and price.
2 See: www.planning.nsw.gov.au/NewsCentre/LatestNews/TabId/775/ArtMID/1658/ArticleID/308/NSW-Number-One-Again-for-Housing-Approvals.aspx
Possible spot for ad for PIA membership and highlight subscription to new planner will be done for second draft
government and public sector
randwick urban activation precinct sydney CBD and southeast light rail grafton second crossing study WestConnex parrammatta road corridorbarangaroo delivery authority
www.gta.com.au
transport planning and advisoryrr
A comprehensive policy is needed to boost supply of affordable housing in Sydney (Source: Andrew Wheeler)
Figure 2: Housing prices (Source: CoreLogic RP Data; RBA)* Excludes apartments; measured as areas outside of capital cities in mainland states
02 – 4942 [email protected]
Economics – The Planner’s ChallengeSean Stephens, Managing Partner, Essential Economics
To assist the non-economists amongst us,
five answers to economics related questions
you may receive are provided below in the
hope they come in useful someday.
Q: Isn’t the land market just a matter of
demand and supply?
A: Yes. But not in the fast and efficient
way it works for many other products
and services. Three reasons spring
immediately to mind, although there are
many others.
First, land is a finite resource. As the old
saying goes ‘buy land, they’ve stopped
making it!’.
Second, land is an asset that is heavily
used as security on bank debt. This
often means that the old fashioned laws
of supply and demand don’t work so
well in the buying or selling of land. For
example, an investor may be unable to
sell a property as it is security on a totally
unrelated financial transaction.
Third, land is something that varies
widely in characteristics and quality – it
can be flood prone, contaminated, sloping
or any of a thousand different things that
limit what it can be used for.
Q: Does the planning system make
housing unaffordable?
A: The planning system has some influence
on house prices, but in reality this is
generally only a small factor when
considered relative to a wide range of
other influences.
For example, median prices in Broken
Hill and the far west of New South Wales
(which has experienced population
decline) have increased at a faster
rate in percentage terms than those in
Greater Sydney (which has experienced
population growth) over the period
2004 to 2014. Quite clearly planning
constraints cannot explain the higher
rate of house price growth in Broken
Hill and the far west, where there are no
issues with a lack of housing supply.
The reality is a highly diverse range of
factors such as tax policy, interest rates,
bank lending standards, wages growth
and even share prices, all work together
to influence house prices. Planning policy
and land supply is but one part of a very
complex equation.
Q: How can you value liveability?
A: With difficulty. A great economic
argument in favour of planning is that
good land use planning has a value for
society in terms of liveability, social
cohesion and overall amenity.
Unfortunately, placing an exact value
on this is very difficult despite the very
noble efforts of some economists. What
we need to be mindful of is that these
benefits have broad financial, social and
environmental aspects that are very
real in the long-term. Just ask any New
Yorker if they think Central Park has
added value to liveability.
Q: Why does planning seek to reduce
competition in the retail sector?
A: It doesn’t.
Competition between individual
businesses of itself is not a relevant
planning issue. Property and planning
lawyers regularly raise this in cross-
examination and when arguing case law.
Q: What makes land use planners think
they know how we want to live?
A: Planners care about ensuring land and
resources are used for the economic and
social wellbeing of the community – as
stated in the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act.
In informing views on how this is
achieved, the land use planning
and development industry spends
massive amounts of time and energy
consulting and seeking insights from the
community. Indeed, if one chooses to,
the entire planning system is remarkably
open to public participation and input. So
if you think planners don’t understand
what people want…get involved!
It is common for the planning and development industry to deal with
questions and opinions relating to economics that lack appreciation
of the practical realities in our industry. Too often our industry has
taken hits from politicians, policy influencers and policy makers who
either don’t, or don’t choose to, make the effort to understand that land
use planning and development is more sophisticated than the simple
demand and supply graphs taught in high school economics
14 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Sydney Needs Planning Leadership to Manage Growth but Many Planners are Still Ticking BoxesChris Johnson AM MPIA, CEO, Urban Taskforce
But where are the planners on nightly television
or debating with the radio shock jocks?
Planners, it seems, are either writing reports
for developers or ticking the boxes of plans
relative to council rules. I believe the planning
profession should be able to utilise the tensions
in Sydney’s growth to elevate the profession
to a leadership role on behalf of the whole
community. There is a great opportunity to use
the tipping point that Sydney is approaching,
as we move from a suburban to an urban city,
to lift the profile and role of planners. Added
to this unique increase in density is the NSW
government’s determination to reform local
government and, of course, the State election
later this month.
PIA has Called for Cultural Change of
Planners
During the unsuccessful planning reform
process undertaken by the NSW government,
PIA championed the need for cultural change
of planners. The proposals from PIA were
to make planners less risk averse and more
about taking strategic leadership roles about
the future, but nothing much happened.
Certainly committees were formed in the
Department of Planning, but there is little
evidence of actual change. There would seem
to be an opportunity for planners themselves,
as a profession, to champion a more
strategic role by proposing a new governance
structure that relates to a larger scale than
that of the neighbourhood or of existing
council boundaries. This, of course, is exactly
what the government is trying to do with local
government reform.
Regional Thinking is Essential
Planning is essentially about the future
and it therefore has an intellectual problem
with community involvement and existing
contexts. Most local communities will be
very anti-change and feel threatened by new
approaches to density and built form. The
local councillors represent their interests
and so those who champion the future
population are often derided. Developers
have had to carry this burden because they
are providing for the future. So planners
must be lifted above the local level if they are
going to represent the future. They need to
think at a much more regional scale and this
can fit comfortably with the council reforms
the NSW government is proposing.
Regional Planning Centres of Excellence
To lift planning to the realm of strategic
thinking means lifting the scope from the
local to the regional. This separates the
planner from the local thinking of ward
councillors who are often driven by NIMBY
action groups against change. For the
Sydney metropolitan area there could be 6
or 12 Planning Centres of Excellence rather
than a planning department in each of the
current 41 councils. The Planning Centres
of Excellence would be independent of each
individual council but would provide a service
back to each council. In some cases the
planning office would be in only one very
large council if the amalgamation process
led to this.
This structure is already working for legal
services in the Hunter where 11 councils
share one legal service centre. Legal staff
now have better career prospects, there is
more specialisation to give better advice to
individual councils and a regular newsletter
on recent legal cases is circulated to
all councils. In the same way centres of
excellence for planners could be a win for all
parties.
A Regional Structure Will Energise
Private Sector Planners
Currently private sector planners must support
development applications within the politics
of the local council. This can mean preparing
multiple reports on community concerns.
Ultimately, the reports are aimed at getting
through the regulatory maze. A more regional
regulatory approach would energise the private
sector to provide advice in a new form with a
new language. The same should occur with
private sector planners involved in strategic
planning with more rational than emotional
thinking driving proposals for supporting future
growth. Joint Regional Planning Panels would
be serviced by regional planning offices rather
than by individual councils.
The Expectations of Communities About
Planning
The current government argues that
planning should be given back to
communities, but this would effectively stop
much development. I believe this approach
raised the wrong expectations within
community groups and contributed to the
failure of the planning reforms. We don’t
hand the running of the trains or how we
should combat cancer back to communities.
We trust experts to make these decisions. We
need a new community engagement program
that ensures a commitment to growth that
represents future generations and not
only the selfish concerns of today. This is
a big ask but with a new approach to the
leadership role of regional planners, I think
we can re-engage with the community. If we
don’t, then future growth will be an ongoing
battle with the comfort of the present.
This issue of New Planner is about politics,
which inevitably leads to governance. The
ideas I have floated here are about rethinking
governance and they will need political support.
But increasingly around the world change is
coming from professional or industry groups
who can lobby government for structural
change. If planners really are the owners of
pathways to the future, then planners should
actively promote how they see their expertise
best able to help the broader community of
today and of tomorrow
According to recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS),
Sydney leads the country in having more density than any other city
in Australia. This should mean that planners are the most important
people in the city. As Sydney changes from a low-rise sprawling city
to an urbane dense city, communities will feel threatened unless they
have confidence that planners have growth under control.
op
inio
n
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 15
What do you believe is the biggest planning challenge facing NSW over the next decade? How does the Liberal Party intend to address this challenge?
With projections of an extra 1.6 million people in Sydney in the next twenty years it is so important to plan for long-term growth. We are already acting to tackle the challenge of planning for the State’s future. We are creating well-designed, distinctive places that are alive with activity, integrated with better public transport, jobs and services people need.
The Baird Government released A Plan for Growing Sydney, a vision for Sydney’s future as a competitive global city. We have also started work with local government and other stakeholders on subregional plans. The Greater Sydney Commission will have carriage of subregional plans.
Outside Sydney we’ve already delivered a draft Regional Growth and Infrastructure Plan for the Illawarra and are working through the community’s feedback on the Central Coast Discussion Paper. Delivering plans for other parts of NSW will be priorities in 2015.
A Plan for Growing Sydney will make sure communities in Sydney have access to the things they value. This includes parks, accessible public transport, jobs closer to home and affordable housing. It is a different approach, with 59 deliverable and measurable actions to be overseen by the Greater Sydney Commission. The Plan establishes Parramatta as Sydney’s second CBD, and has committed to renewing the area between Greater Parramatta and the Olympic Peninsula and delivering the Sydney Green Grid project to link open space and confirming Penrith, Campbelltown and Liverpool as Regional City Centres.
The Commission will implement the Plan to make sure the right homes, jobs, infrastructure and services are being delivered when and where they are needed. This will be done in close consultation with communities and local government.
How will you plan for growth and investment in the State’s regional areas?
Regional NSW is critical for the growth and development of NSW.
We are developing regional growth plans to ensure growth is properly planned.
We have released a discussion paper for the Central Coast, and a Draft Regional Plan for the Illawarra generating hundreds of submissions and other forms of feedback.
Does the NSW planning system require reform? If so, how do you think reform can be achieved given that the most recent attempt to create a new Planning Act was defeated in Parliament?
The NSW planning system requires reform to become more transparent, streamlined and certain.
Our $22 million commitment in the budget to make the system simpler to understand and easier to access through ePlanning is well advanced. This online interactive tool is saving homeowners and businesses time and money by cutting swathes of paper work and red tape. The new online platform has had more than 80,000 users in its first five months. PIA members showed great interest during a presentation on the ePlanning tools at your recent conference in the Hunter and have helped our ePlanning team work on future improvements.
The NSW Government has the toughest penalties in Australia after we increased the maximum fine for those who breach development conditions or cause environmental damage from $1 million to $5 million.
The Land and Environment Court has also been granted the authority to order utility providers to cut off gas, water and electricity to hostels that are illegal, or found to break consent conditions.
We’ve introduced changes to enable a greater variety of housing choice that will encourage builders to develop house and land packages for $400,000 or less.
We have also committed to reduce the average time it takes to process state significant developments like manufacturing plants and mines by up to 170 days. By introducing clear and measurable timeframes for assessments and ensuring government agencies work better together we are providing more certainty to community and industry.
NSW is seeing the delivery of major urban renewal projects at Green Square, Barangaroo and Newcastle. What lessons do these project hold as planning commences on The Bays Precinct?
The development of Green Square, Barangaroo and the revitalisation of Newcastle have highlighted the importance of a coordinated, whole-of-government strategy to renew key precincts.
The Bays Precinct is an exciting opportunity for Sydney. For too long this precinct has been under-utilised and inaccessible.
The NSW Government last year hosted the Bays Summit where we brought together some of the best global minds on city development. UrbanGrowth is leading a Transformation Plan which will be informed by an extensive public engagement program, including the Sydneysiders’ Summit in May this year.
What city (other than Sydney) inspires you most? What features of this city could be successfully applied to our own cities and towns?
Newcastle has so much potential. When you consider opportunities to create vibrant and active communities across NSW, Newcastle shines. We are delivering a plan to revitalise the Newcastle city centre, and reinforce Newcastle’s role as a strategically important regional city.
The Baird Government has committed over $460 million in funding for the urban renewal and light rail, with over $1 billion in investment from the private sector following the Government’s announcement to truncate the heavy rail line.
The NSW Government will now continue to seek community input on ideas to revitalise the city and reconnect the city to the waterfront.
Design Newcastle run by UrbanGrowth reached out to people through workshops, surveys and online discussions on plans to reconnect the city to the waterfront. I’m thrilled by the ideas and concepts put forward by Novocastrians and look forward to seeing the final plans after further consultation with communities
Interview: NSW Liberal PartyPru Goward MP, Minister for Planning, NSW Liberal Party
16 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 17
inte
rview
What do you believe is the biggest
planning challenge facing NSW over the
next decade? How does the NSW Greens
intend to address this challenge?
The biggest challenge currently facing
planning in NSW is how to create a planning
system that is democratic, ecologically
and socially sustainable, and that provides
housing and development that meets our
future needs. The developments that are
being constructed today will be with us
long into the future. We need a planning
system that ensures we are building the
best, addressing the challenges of climate
change with communities that retain
their character, charm and appeal for
generations to come. This requires planning
laws that are principled and applied with
care and consistency.
The Greens NSW have always put the
environment and the community at the heart
of planning decisions. These considerations
must be given at least equal weight to
economic considerations if we are to deliver
ecologically sustainable development.
Across the State people are looking for
walkable, liveable neighbourhoods with
strong public transport connections and
local services. These can be created
through sensitive infill development and
carefully designed new communities that
are supported by public infrastructure,
services and fully protected public open
spaces. This requires a commitment
to forward planning to ensure that
public transport, services and public
infrastructure are in place to accompany
new development.
We also believe in diverse neighbourhoods
and strongly endorse affordable and social
housing targets to ease the state’s housing
crisis.
How will you plan for growth and
investment in the State’s regional areas?
Regional growth requires co-ordinated
planning from local councils, NSW
Planning and significant state stakeholders
including the Office of Environment and
Heritage and the Transport Ministry. To
date the only significant co-ordination at
a regional level is between planning and
resource agencies that see extractive
industries cruelling long term sustainable
employment in the regions.
Does the NSW planning system require
reform? If so, how do you think reform
can be achieved given the most recent
attempt to create a new Planning Act was
defeated in Parliament?
There is universal agreement that the
planning system in NSW requires reform.
For planning reform to work it requires a
non-partisan and honest reform agenda
from the government of the day. This
includes a planning reform process that
respects the views of the community, every
bit as much as it listens to developers. This
did not happen with the 2012/13 planning
reforms and largely explains the Coalition’s
legislative failure.
The Greens are committed to an open
and positive working relationship with
any government that is seeking genuinely
balanced planning reform. This offer was
repeatedly made to the former Planning
Minister Brad Hazzard who rejected all
such offers. He rejected similar offers from
community groups. He wrongly believed
that he did not need consensus or support
beyond the development lobby to achieve
planning reform.
NSW is seeing the delivery of major
urban renewal projects at Green Square,
Barangaroo and Newcastle. What lessons
do these projects hold as planning
commences on The Bays Precinct?
There is ongoing public dissatisfaction
with the consultation processes around
these large projects, in particular with
Barangaroo and Newcastle where there
is a broad consensus that the local
community has been ignored in favour of
the development industry.
NSW has a sorry history of Ministers and
bureaucrats intervening to facilitate large
scale projects on an ad hoc and unprincipled
basis. The solution is not to privilege the
views of land owners and developers while
removing local councils’ planning powers,
but instead to work collaboratively with
communities, councils and land owners to
ensure there are robust planning controls
that deliver good communities.
The Greens acknowledge that there are
opportunities for creative planning solutions
for large projects. These opportunities
require long term rules based planning, not
false community promises and endless pro-
developer amendment.
The lessons the community and developers
will take from Barangaroo and Green
Square are:
(a) Developers are never willing to accept
the initial planning outcomes and will
apply relentless pressure for greater
density which pressure normally
achieves results; and
(b) The necessary transport and social
infrastructure that is promised to
accommodate large scale developments
inevitably fail to eventuate.
The initial response to the Newcastle
Planning project indicates that the plan
has minimal community support and
is unlikely to be successful. It will most
likely deliver a modest number of initial
out-of-scale developments with windfall
gains for those landowners, together with
stagnation and poor planning outcomes for
the balance of the city.
What city (other than Sydney) inspires
you most? What features of this city could
be successfully applied to our own cities
and towns?
Hong Kong and Paris both inspire me.
For all the faults of Hong Kong’s property
obsession and developer-driven politics,
they have got one big thing right: the
delivery of high quality public transport
infrastructure with all major residential or
commercial developments. Paris shows
how a modern city can prosper while
respecting its natural and built heritage and
how strong legal protections, when applied
without fear or favour, deliver long term
investor certainty and liveable cities
Interview: NSW GreensDavid Shoebridge MP, Planning Spokesperson, NSW Greens
18 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
A new Act
PIA has consistently called for a new Planning Act to rectify
the fundamental flaws with the current antiquated, inefficient
and ineffective Act. Whilst there were some controversial
aspects of the Planning Bill that went to Parliament in 2013,
much of it was broadly supported by most stakeholders
including PIA.
Action: To restore confidence in planning in NSW, PIA calls
for a new Planning Act to be enacted as soon as possible.
The NSW planning system will be underpinned by up front
strategic evidence based planning.
Governance Review
Confidence has been lost in the planning system in part due
to a lack of internal and external clarity in who is responsible
for planning and implementation of plans in NSW. There
is a myriad of Departments, Councils, Agencies, Boards,
Committees, Panels and others with overlapping roles and
responsibilities. The end result is that even the agencies
themselves are not always clear on where their roles start
and end and consequently planning decisions are often slow,
uncoordinated, inefficient, or just not made.
Action: To restore confidence and leadership in planning in
NSW, PIA calls for a complete review and rationalisation of all
bodies with a role in planning and delivery of plans within the
state, which identifies clear and distinct roles, responsibilities
and accountabilities for each body. PIA submits that planning
is vital to the prosperity of NSW and the Planning Department
should be a key, central agency within government.
Regional and sub regional planning
Regional and Sub regional planning provides strategies
to deliver housing, employment, social and physical
infrastructure whilst recognising the uniqueness of local
neighbourhoods. These plans should set the scene by
providing the narrative to Government priorities. The plans
provide confidence to communities and the development
industry as to how a place will change over time.
In the lead up to the NSW Election, the NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia is calling for action on a number
of key elements, including restoring community confidence in the planning system, providing leadership in the planning
system and being positive and proactive about setting the planning framework for NSW.
The NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia will continue to engage the major political parties on these issues.
The Institute is an apolitical organisation but it is essential that we make a stand on planning issues for the sake of the
NSW community, the planning profession and our members.
PIA NSW advocates that planning for NSW cities and regions requires well managed growth that creates housing diversity,
employment together with balanced environmental and social community outcomes.
Sydney should be globally recognised for its competitiveness, innovation, sustainability and liveability.
To be effective in managing the growth, PIA believes that the Government needs to lead the rebuilding of the community’s
and the development industry’s trust in the planning profession to provide certainty and clarity to the planning process.
PIA NSW sets three key challenges for the NSW Government for the next four years:
» Restoring community confidence in the planning profession
» Providing planning leadership and
» Creating a proactive planning regime.
If met, these key elements will restore the balance between “my” local environment, the community and growing the
NSW economy.
PIA NSW Advocates Better Planning for Growth
CONFIDENCE LEADERSHIP PROACTIVE PLANNING
Strong NSW economy
Local environment
Community Confidence
Planning leadership
Proactive planning
Planning certainty
Action: PIA calls on the NSW Government to commit
adequate resources to the regional planning process for the
Sydney Metropolitan area and regional areas.
Community engagement
PIA notes the cynicism within parts of the community about
planning and development decision making. In order to
restore confidence in the system PIA calls for effective
community participation with the associated attention to
detail and resourcing to achieve this.
Community engagement should not be a one-off event: it
should be an ongoing process throughout the strategic planning
process to allow for feedback and ongoing communication.
This helps to demonstrate to a community that participation is
not simply an obligation the planning authorities have to fulfil.
It provides the basis for community acceptance and a better
understanding of the value of planning.
Action: Implement the community engagement principles
estabished in the 2013 White Paper on Planning Reform.
Integrating land use and infrastructure planning
PIA NSW advocates a bold vision for smart growth in NSW
and Sydney. This vision can only be delivered through
proactive integrated land use and infrastructure planning,
identifying clear priorities based on demonstrated need.
Planning has a vital role to play navigating complex economic,
environmental and social choices with the community, to
support productivity growth in the NSW economy.
Genuine and consistent forward funding commitments are
required to restore community confidence that the right
infrastructure will be delivered in the right place at the right
time.
Action: This requires planning leadership from the NSW
Government based on a renewed commitment to deliver on
infrastructure planning and delivery reforms identified in the
White Paper. The reform needs to include a revised policy of
both state and local funding contributions.
Housing diversity
A productive and attractive Global City needs a diversity of
housing to function effectively and to compete internationally.
By current standards however, Australia is second amongst
developed nations with respect to the ratio of house prices to
income when figures are compared to historical averages.
Action: PIA seeks a commitment from the State Government
to develop a robust policy and implementation plan that
enables a range of mechanisms to be utilised by Government
(including local government) and the private sector to
increase housing diversity and affordability across NSW.
Environment and biodiversity
NSW PIA advocates for a strong economy balanced with
social and environmental outcomes.
The current biodiversity framework and legislation is
complex and difficult to navigate. Different definitions and
calculations of vegetation and species credits occur, and
many assessments do not recognize the associated social
and economic benefits in projects.
NSW PIA believes a review and integration between the
methodology, definitions, calculations of credits and
approach of bio banking, biocertification, Major Projects
biodiversity framework and Part 5 of the EP & A Act is
required to streamline and provide certainty to the public and
private sector.
Action: Planners want to achieve good environmental
outcomes, and welcome the opportunity to work with NSW
government as part of the planning reforms to integrate and
simplify environmental legislation.
Establish the economic value of planning
The effective and proactive planning of our cities results in
economic productivity gains. The economic value of good planning
should not be overlooked in decision making. Understanding the
economic value of planning should also demonstrate why planning
in the state is fundamentally important and must be adequately
resourced.
Action: PIA seeks a commitment that a robust evidence base study
will be prepared by the NSW State Government that quantifies the
economic value of urban and regional planning to our cities and
regions so as to inform balanced decision making that also protects
the interests of future generations.
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 19
ele
ctio
n m
an
ifesto
20 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
What do you believe is the biggest
planning challenge facing NSW over the
next decade? How does the Labor Party
intend to address this challenge?
We know that metropolitan Sydney
requires greater housing density in order
to accommodate an additional 1.6 million
people by 2031. But this endeavour must
not only be centred on housing targets
and headline residential city towers. We
need to take a much more sophisticated
approach that considers not only how
we house our future population, but also
where we educate them and how we
transport them. And we must consider
these questions before the plans are
drafted, not simply hope for the best once
these buildings are complete.
In 2011, the current government
promised to return planning powers to
local communities. That didn’t happen
and it has left the community feeling
excluded, silenced and ignored. Labor
believes that allowing the community
to genuinely contribute will broaden
the scope and vision of how we might
interact with our cities and towns in the
decades to come. We do not believe the
community should be seen as an element
of the planning process that needs to be
‘managed’ or a box to be ticked.
Labor is committed to restoring balance
to the planning system. We believe in the
growth and opportunity that economic
activity provides, but it must not be at the
cost of genuine community involvement
or our responsibility to protect our
natural environment.
How will you plan for growth and
investment in the State’s regional
areas?
Rural and regional NSW will play an
integral role in meeting the demands of
the future growth of this State.
Our regions outside Sydney have
tremendous potential in providing an
alternative lifestyle choice for individuals
and families. But in order for this to
be a viable alternative, what we need
is sustainable regional employment
opportunities.
The Baird Government has diverted
much of the proceeds from asset sales
away from centres like Newcastle and
Wollongong and siphoned them back into
centralised Government operations.
This Government also slashed a number
of critical rural and regional development
programs, replacing them with a silly
voucher system that gives people a quick-
fix cash hit, and then says ‘Good luck!’
The real job of Government is to invest
strategically in areas which have
the potential to create sustainable
employment opportunities.
Does the NSW planning system require
reform? If so, how do you think reform
can be achieved given the most recent
attempt to create a new Planning Act
was defeated in Parliament?
We support a planning system which
places equal value on genuine community
engagement, economic activity and
environmental responsibility.
We support a system that is fair and
consistent across all communities. That
is why we did not support legislation that
allowed Code Assessable Development in
Maroubra and Minto, but not in Mosman
or Miranda.
Interview: NSW Labor PartyJodi McKay, Planning Spokesperson, NSW Labor Party
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 21
The Government has focused too narrowly
on ways of reforming the planning
system. Saying one thing in Opposition
and doing the complete contrast in
Government has further undermined the
public’s trust in planning.
The planning system needs to think in the
long term and look to strategies to deliver
these longer-term goals. It can only do
this by building the community’s trust and
confidence in the planning system. This
is why Labor will continue to champion a
system that does not deprive its citizens
of a voice at critical stages of the planning
process.
NSW is seeing the delivery of major
urban renewal projects at Green
Square, Barangaroo and Newcastle.
What lessons do these projects hold
as planning commences on The Bays
Precinct?
Green Square and Barangaroo provide a
few examples of positive development in
Sydney. Both were supported by a State
Infrastructure Plan. The genesis of Green
Square was the opening of the Airport
Rail link. Similarly Labor committed
over $100 million to the construction of
Wynyard Walk to ensure Barangaroo was
connected to public transport and city
services.
The Bays precinct needs a similar
infrastructure plan before we can start
talking numbers like 16,000 apartments.
We must be robust in our interrogation
of these plans: how are we going to link
the precinct to the City? Where are people
going to be able to access employment
and services? Great cities don’t happen
by chance. They happen when all levels
of Government work together to ensure
our community’s needs are being met.
Strategic infrastructure needs must be
contemplated and built into the plan,
not jammed in after the fact, or worse,
forgotten about entirely and simply left
for ‘Government to sort it out’. We must
all take responsibility for how our city is
planned and built.
What city (other than Sydney) inspires
you most? What features of this city
could be successfully applied to our own
cities and towns?
The City from which I draw most
inspiration is not in another Country, but
another time.
20 years ago I saw a City come together
and develop a Plan. It was a Plan subject
to extensive consultation, a Plan that was
then revised and adapted to reflect that
consultation, which was then vigorously
pursued by every arm of Government
at every level of Government. It was a
Plan that was also fully supported by
the citizens of that City and all sides of
politics. That distant City went on to host
the world’s greatest Olympics.
70 years ago we saw that same City
emerge from the horrors of the World War
and a grinding Depression with a Plan
to become one of the world’s greatest.
A Plan which established a green belt
to protect its natural environment and
world heritage listed National Parks. A
Plan that succeeded in providing enough
housing for its returning soldiers as well
as a booming new generation. A plan
which had at its core, the simple belief
that everyone had a right to a job, and
that land should be reserved for new
industries and commerce.
That Plan was supported by an
infrastructure Plan which saw water and
sewerage, trains and roads, schools and
hospitals built to service the growing
needs of its citizens. That Plan was
adopted by both sides of politics and each
level of Government and continued for two
generations to provide jobs, housing and
the restoration of its natural environment
and lay the foundations for one of the
world’s greatest cities.
That City is of course, Sydney.
Great Cities don’t happen by chance. They
happen when all levels of government and
each side of politics work with its citizens
to address our common problems and
exploit our shared opportunities.
Great Cities happen when we agree
on a Plan and then work together to
implement it
PLANNER’SDINNER
PIA 2015
Don’t miss the 2015 Planner’s Dinner with special guestsHon Pru GowardMinster for Planning
Jodi McKayOpposition Spokesperson for Planning
Bob Meyer OAM LFPIADirector, Cox Richardson
Thursday 12th March 2015
Doltone House,Hyde Park, Sydney
REGISTER TODAYwww.planning.org.au/nswSponsored by
inte
rview
New Planner would like to thank
Pru Goward, Jodi McKay and
David Shoebridge for taking the
time to be interviewed for this
special issue.
Join us at the 2015 Planner’s
Dinner to hear Pru and Jodi
expand on their vision for
planning in NSW.
PIA Life Fellow, Bob Meyer, will
also speak at this not-to-be-
missed evening of discussion and
debate. See below for details on
how to register.
22 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Accommodating all these VIPs in fitting
positions has always been a challenge.
Take Barry O’Farrell’s comments (as
Premier) on the latest addition, the
Governor Macquarie statue:
The Governor and I would have liked it to be
centred, looking straight down Macquarie
Street past the barracks, his church, down
to the stables near Government House…
[but] apparently you have to have a plan
of management process. I think the real
problem is commitment.1
A plan for the $150,000 statue to be fixed
low enough so people could stand beside
it was similarly thwarted: ‘The historical
architects of the city council insisted it be
as high as it is’.1
History tells us that O’Farrell will one day
get his wishes. The VIPs may be dead, but
as the table below shows, their statues are
forever on the move.
Queen Victoria has made multiple moves
(‘We are not amused’). In her current
position, she is no longer looking at her
husband, and has only the law courts to
gaze at. In the heyday of statues by public
subscription, the siting was more subtle.
Take the King Edward VII statue. The
heritage Statement of Significance says
its heritage significance lies, among other
qualities, in ‘its siting to terminate the vista
along Bridge Street, an example of axial
town planning’. Actually, this was not so.
The statue’s original position did not align
with the Bridge Street centre line, and it was closer to the Conservatorium.
There were other considerations:
It is a fair domain that this statue…commands at the approach to the State Conservatorium. On one side are Government House and its picturesque grounds, with the blue waters of the harbour in the distance to give added grace to the setting; on the other side is the long sweep of lawn bordering the Botanic Gardens and in front, with a view through Bridge-street, is a vista of one of our finest thoroughfares – Macquarie-street. Thus this commanding equestrian statue...looks out over the city.2
Not one of the several early photos of the statue show Bridge Street or Macquarie Street, rather they show the statue in relation to the gates to Government House or the Conservatorium. In 1958, the construction of the Cahill Expressway forced the king to move, and it was only then that the planners decided he should look straight down Bridge Street, and be next to Macquarie Street.
When the time first came to find a site for King Edward VII, the plan was to keep the family together: Queen Victoria, Prince Albert and their son King Edward, as illustrated by John Sulman’s wonderful sketch.
It seems the thinking of JH Maiden, head of the Botanic Gardens, influenced Sulman:
I allude to Sieges-allee, or Avenue of Victory…Fronting the footpath…are a number of groups of statuary…Around each principal statue is a semi-circular marble bench and at the back of each bench are busts of two of the most eminent men of the reign of the particular ruler. Everything is constructed of white marble.3
Maiden had visited Berlin in 1900 (British occupation forces demolished Sieges Allee in 1947). Sadly, Sulman’s plan did not get up for reasons of cost and delays following the outbreak of the First World War:
You will remember that the original intention was to erect a very fine memorial in Queen’s Square at the entrance to the main avenue of Hyde Park. An architectural feature was to be constructed, semi-circular in character,
Time for a Family Reunion on Macquarie Street?John Freeman MPIA
Macquarie Street remains a metonym for the NSW Government.
Think of the statues along or close by the street: Edward VII, Governor
Phillip, Governor Bourke, Governor Macquarie, Queen Victoria and
Prince Albert.
STATUE YEAR LOCATION REMARKS
Prince
Albert
1866 Hyde Park
1922 Royal Botanic Gardens Moved here for construction of railway
1958 Storage Moved here for road construction
1961 Royal Botanic Gardens New location after storage
1987 Queen’s Square Moved here as part of Macquarie Street
Bicentennial project
Queen
Victoria
1879 Royal Botanic Gardens Destroyed by fire 1882 before planned move
1881 Queen’s Square Pedestal only, new statue followed 1888
1908 Queen’s Square Moved away from Queens Square axis
1969 Queen’s Square, Moved close to Law Courts
1987 Queen’s Square Moved away from Law Courts as part of
Macquarie Street Bicentennial project
King
Edward
1922 Near Conservatorium Originally planned for Hyde Park
1958 Top of Bridge Street Moved here for road construction
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 23
op
inio
n
to be flanked on either side by the statues of the Prince Consort and Queen Victoria (this latter to be moved from its present position) and the central position to be occupied by the equestrian statue of Kind Edward 7th.
In consequence of the War, delays occurred, and it is now found that to execute the work will cost considerably more than is available, and so the committee has practically decided to give up the more elaborate scheme in Queen’s Square, and place the equestrian statue of King Edward 7th at the top of Bridge Street near the entrance to the Conservatorium, but some little distance back from the building line of Macquarie Street.4
Newspaper reports tell us that Sulman was present at the dedication of the statue. What did he think about it? Anyway, ever since then, those members of the family represented in Sydney have been constantly on the move to make way for road and rail projects, without ever quite managing to get together. Sulman’s final thoughts on the subject, in one of several fascinating letters to the Sydney Morning Herald shortly before his death in 1934, are illuminating:
The present approach to Hyde Park from Macquarie-street is undignified but if the final proposal of the King Edward Memorial Committee (as approved by the Government and the City Council) was carried out and the War Memorial shifted from Martin-place to the centre of Queen
square this end of the park would be nobly treated and fittingly balance the imposing Anzac Memorial at the southern end.5
The current arrangement of the public domain in Queen’s Square and Macquarie Street dates from the years leading up to Australia’s bicentennial celebrations:
The statues of Queen Victoria and Prince Alfred were moved to their present positions and for the first time Macquarie Street had a comprehensive landscape plan, prepared by Coneybeare and Morrison (now CM+). To bring unity and integration to Queen’s Square, Coneybeare and Morrison continued the pedestrian area paving across Macquarie Street.
Sadly, the paving across Macquarie Street proved unable to resist the ravages of increasing traffic. As part of the Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement Plan, the Government now proposes further modifications to Queen’s Square and Macquarie Street to accommodate more traffic.6 The traffic increase, street widening and tree removal will tend to devalue the boulevard values of Macquarie Street and further separate the two statues at Queen’s Square.
And what about the second son of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria: Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, who a Sydney resident shot in the back in an attempted assassination on the beach at Clontarf in 1868?7 The Duke never fully recovered and died before his mother. We have treated this family badly; we should give them a family reunion, respecting John Sulman’s concept. Governor Macquarie can then stand outside his stables and command the entrance to the new Government House, looking down Bridge Street to his government house to satisfy the axial planners n
Endnotes
1 The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February 2013.2 The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 May 1922. 3 The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 March 1905, p. 4. “Park Statuary. A Grand Avenue for Sydney”.4 Memo 24 September 1920. Deputy Town Clerk to Town Clerk, City of Sydney Archives, File no. 3295.5 The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 May 1933. Letter to the Editor.6 Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2014, Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement Plan: Review of Environmental Factors, RMS, Sydney.7 The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 June 1868. This was the first attempted assassination in Australia, and it was nearly a hundred years before the next (of Arthur Calwell in 1966).
The position of the statues of Edward VII and Prince Albert from the 1920s until the construction of the Cahill Expressway in the late-1950s (Source: City of Sydney Archives, Aerial Survey of the City of Sydney, 1949)
Memorial to King Edward VII at Sydney – original design prepared for the Memorial Committee by John Sulman at the end of Macquarie St and forming a monumental entrance to Hyde Park (Source: City of Sydney Archives, Item S6-47/10)
To commemorate Australia’s Bicentenary, the Government is transforming Macquarie Street into a spacious tree-lined avenue which will do
Macquarie Street will be the equal of
and I invite you to share my excitement
NEVILLE WRAN Premier
24 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Events are Important
We know events are important and provide
significant environmental, economic and
social benefits to a community and expose
new ideas and innovation.1
In 2007, the Australian Research Council
Festivals Project determined the diversity
and the social, economic and cultural role
events played in Tasmania and regional
areas of NSW and Victoria.2 The Festivals
Project recorded more than 2,850 events,
which collectively were estimated to
generate 10 billion dollars for the local
economies, with about 1,300 regional
events and festivals in NSW alone.
Events are diverse in location and content.
Events use vacant space, be it land, water
or air, to provide an experience for tourists,
visitors and local residents with activities.
The installation of temporary facilities such
as stages, car parks, amenities and food
kiosks make any public or private space
usable for temporary events.
The desire for a point of difference from
another event, such as a scenic backdrop
for a concert when combined with
improved temporary structures, results in
new locations becoming feasible venues
for events. Events ‘cumulatively are a
substantial industry’ and it is necessary to
initiate strategic action.2
The Assessment Process
Events and festivals have a significant
role in attracting increased visitation and
spend…In addition, there is a significant
amount of red tape at State and Local
Government levels to secure approvals for
events and festivals. 3
Event assessment is complicated. The
history of events assessment in NSW
records a diversity of approaches,
confusion over legislation, and numerous
court decisions and interpretations further
complicated by a lack of a strategic
approach to the placement and type of
events. There are inherent problems in
the land use planning system in NSW,
evidenced by the ongoing major structural
amendments to the planning legislation.
Changes in the legislation have been made
with the aim of simplifying and improving
the land use assessment process.
In 2004, the Standard Instrument Local
Environmental Plan (SILEP)4 created a
common structure and language for local
government zoning controls to remove
complexity and confusion, reduce delay,
and improve practice.5 Included in the
proposed changes, legislated in 2006, was
an optional provision for temporary land
uses. All but two NSW councils have this
clause and several other councils have
exemptions from DA lodgement for events
on public roads and reserves. As a result of
this new and powerful clause, temporary
uses of land are permissible with consent
in any location subject to certain criteria
and limited to a number of days annually. In
addition, the SILEP introduced water zonings
and, when linked with the temporary use
clause, it could be argued that councils are
now responsible for granting development
consent to any event on water.
However, the short duration and
impermanence of events makes it
Can We Run a Billy Cart Derby?Uncertainty in the Assessment of Temporary Uses in New South Wales
Garry O’Dell MPIA, Director, Sunrise Town Planning & PhD Candidate, University of Newcastle
At some time in our lives most of us have experienced the
excitement of events such as markets, community gatherings, and
sporting, music, art, trade or agricultural festivals. We believe that a
positive answer to the title question of this opinion piece is obvious.
But, in New South Wales, this is not the case. Rules and practices
may vary in each council area – for private land, public land or water
– and even the credentials of an event organiser may be considered.
The uncertainty of the event process may threaten the future of the
events we all enjoy. This opinion piece aims to initiate debate on a
better approach to decision making for events in NSW.
Hope Estate concert main stage and amphitheatre with capacity for 20,000 people in the Hunter – an example of a popular temporary event (Source: author)
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 25
op
inio
n
difficult to fit into the planning process.6
The uncertainty of event assessment
is best demonstrated by the NSW
Government’s approach for the World Rally
Championship. To allow this temporary
land use in northern NSW, the NSW
Government passed the Motor Sports
(World Rally Championship) Act 2009 (WRC
Act).7 The WRC Act is unusual as it lists
exemptions to other legislation rather than
prescribing a process. This leads to the
conclusion that the legislative environment
is so complicated changes are required.
The role of event assessor is further
complicated. Prior to SILEP, the majority
of the assessment of events existed
outside the local government town
planner’s jurisdiction. When this research
was being developed, it was assumed that
the SILEP changes would make temporary
land uses for events a town planner’s
responsibility. Despite this, a review of
event assessment with NSW councils
indicates that a variety of staff have this
responsibility, including town planners,
event and tourism officers, risk assessors,
parks managers, and engineers. As a
result there are different approaches to
events assessment. Further complications
and confusion may occur when the role
of the land/site owner, organiser and
assessor overlap.
There is uncertainty about event
assessment, conflicting organisational
priorities and community expectations,
and a lack of useful planning practices and
methodologies. Furthermore, Government
legislative actions are piecemeal and
reactionary as was evidenced by the
response to boot camps and the World
Rally Championships.
An Uncertain Future
With the continuing uncertainty, events
may not proceed. There is evidence of
community division over festivals, and
the jostling of political viewpoints.2 Some
events that commenced in a time of
limited or no planning controls, may now
be questioned as a result of changes
in community awareness or possible
discontent with the event. Actions may
arise to terminate the event in the future.
An analysis and informed debate of the
event assessment decision-making
process can contribute to the development
and implementation of policies and
practices for tourism, local government
and planning in NSW n
Endnotes
1 Getz, D 2012, Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.2 Gibson, C & Stewart, A 2009, Reinventing Rural Places: The Extent and Impact of Festivals in Rural and Regional Australia, GeoQuest Research Centre School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong.3 NSW Visitor Economy Taskforce 2012, Final Report of the Visitor Economy Taskforce – A Plan to Double Overnight Visitor Expenditure by 2020, NSW Government, Sydney.4 NSW Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, NSW State Government, No 155 Stat.5 NSW Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) 2004, Standard Provisions for LEPs in NSW – Working Draft, DIPNR, Sydney.6 Bishop, P & Williams, L 2012, The Temporary City, Routledge, London.7 NSW Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Act 2009 (Assented to 1 July 2009).
The complex nature of events assessment in NSW (Source: author)
Temporary food stalls at Hope Estate (Source: author)
PlannerTechHow Will You Be Sharing (Data) in 2015?
John O’Callaghan, Director, JOC Consulting
Whether you know it or not, enormous
amounts of data are collected from you
every second, when you post, scroll
and click, or even when you purchase a
product or service from an institution. This
information is being recorded – which at
times causes some people concern that big
brother is watching and that their personal
information will be corrupted.
However, open data guarantees that the
organisations and individuals who make
available their data are doing so freely and
anonymously. Further, open data is legally
recognised and as such requires a license to
say it is open data. These measures ensure
the authenticity of the data being shared and
an intention to make our places better for all.
In many ways, the concerns about open
data have held it back from playing a bigger
role, sooner, in planning. However, the
irony is that while we have concerns, most
of this data sits idle, stored away, hidden
and forgotten.
Think about your own work processes and
how open data might move from its idle
stage to something much more dynamic,
like finding your lost dog. Many of us use
database software like the humble excel
but what happens to this information once
we save the final document? Is it stored in
the company of government backup? Or is
it then made public, shared and reused to
improve the city at every level?
Around the world, cities are using open
data in a variety of exciting combinations.
They, and the people who run them, are
encouraged by the benefits of open data (like
transparency, efficiency, and innovation)
to share non-private information about
the city and the way we use it. By doing so,
this data can be freely used, reused and
redistributed across non-specific industry
groups to better manage the development,
infrastructure and services of our cities.
In the United States, data.gov is the biggest
open data leader in the world. It was built
with open source software and shares the
code with anyone wanting to build similar
sites. Last year, data.gov was sharing over
130,000 datasets and had 39 states within
America participating in the program. It
highlights and advocates an economic value
associated with open data and the future
potential of this data sharing method.
Research undertaken by The McKinsey
Global Institute, a multinational
management consulting firm based in
New York, estimates that between $720 to
$920 billion per annum could be generated
by the use of open data in transportation
alone. The biggest opportunity within this
field is where individuals use open data to
reduce travel times with apps developed
from Transport API in Britain and the App
Showcase in Ottawa. That is part of the
beauty of embracing open data. It can
position government as the enabler and
catalyst of economic development.
Getting data users, in and outside of
government, familiar with open data has
been a core goal of Code for America.
Founded in 2009, the non-profit is a network
of civic technologists building open source
technology for government (primarily local
councils) and providing the tools needed to
process and understand open data. In 2014,
Code for Australia, part of the Code for All
Network, launched in Melbourne and has
quickly established itself as an Australian
base for open data pioneers. It’s an exciting
move that reflects growing momentum in
open data sharing and a growing recognition
of the relevance, importance and potential of
open data around the world.
Cities in the United Kingdom have also
started to open up access to their data.
One such project launched by the Greater
London Authority (GLA) aims to give public
access to data of the GLA and other public
sector organisations within London. Called
London Datastore, the initiative has since
delivered actions that have improved
population projections, delivered accurate
and efficient transport apps, and created a
database for London Development.
Open data in Australia is also moving
through a range of data portals such as
data.gov.au at the Federal level and data.
nsw.gov.au in NSW. Local governments are
also beginning to share their data to better
engage the public and build momentum
around issues such as sustainability. In
2013, the City of Sydney released data to
‘Sensing Sydney’, an initiative aimed at
“communicating sustainability through the
arts, open data and public space”, which has
been praised worldwide for its unique blend
of infographics, open data and advocacy.
Open data is an engine for innovation and
will be the infrastructure backbone of the
future. But there are still a few hurdles
to jump, particularly when it comes to
building the public’s awareness and
knowledge of the open data technology.
Can planners do more to bridge the gap?
And as more cities open up their data, what
is the future of data sharing in NSW?
Open data is the best friend you never knew you had. It can (and
does) make your commute more efficient. It promotes transparency
in government, fosters collaboration and speeds up innovation. It
can even help you find your lost dog. But what is it, exactly? And
how can we use it?
Reprinted with permission of Cathy Wilcox, Fairfax Media.
26 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
revie
w
In our first column for 2015 we reflect on
some of the strategies utilised to raise
support for the inclusion of health as an
objective of the state’s proposed planning
legislation (the Planning Bill 2013). The
process included much of what often occurs
in public health advocacy – a discipline
with which planners partner to create
healthy built environments. Planners and
public health professionals were both
centrally involved in garnering support for
the inclusion of healthy built environment
considerations. Here we offer our reflections
to document what occurred and also as
a potential way forward to advance other
strategic initiatives in planning. Politics was
a key part of the process, to help translate
the healthy built environments research
evidence base into legislative action.
So What Did We Do?
First, we offered leadership in advocating
for healthy built environments. Both the
NSW Premier’s Council for Active Living
and the Healthy Built Environments
Program at UNSW had been working
in the area for some time. Accordingly,
when the review of the planning system
was announced, we were in an excellent
position to take up the opportunity to
lobby for the inclusion of health in the
new legislation. Our credibility had been
established, as had our commitment to
bringing health and planning in closer
alignment, reflecting the strong evidence
base for such action.
Second, we identified the key healthy
built environment stakeholders in NSW
with an interest in the new planning
legislation. Committed stakeholder
engagement over the duration of the
review was critical. Regular meetings
were held at every stage of the legislative
review. Stakeholders across government,
non-government and peak industry
groups were invited to participate. Each
gathering took on a similar format with
information dissemination by relevant
experts and open discussion to determine
appropriate responses. Recommendations
were prepared following each meeting for
consideration by stakeholders for inclusion
within agency submissions. Of immense
significance was the agreed prioritisation
of recommendations by the stakeholders.
This was continually refined and became
a clear and straightforward aim – to have
health incorporated as an objective of the
new planning legislation.
Another important part of our stakeholder
engagement was the legitimisation of the
group. We named ourselves the ‘Healthy
Planning Expert Working Group’ and
volunteered our collective knowledge
to NSW Planning. Terms of reference
were prepared and the group provided a
convenient conduit for communication
between key healthy built environment
stakeholders at each stage of the planning
process. The group prioritised the strong
research and practice evidence for healthy
built environments. This was used in
presentations to politicians and other key
decision makers, as well as influential
stakeholders across different sectors.
These included development industry
representatives who recognised the
economic benefits of adopting a healthy
built environment approach in their
commercial and residential developments.
Both formal and informal opportunities
were used to disseminate the group’s
key message. Working group members
attended public meetings across the
state, as well as practitioner seminars
convened by the Department of Planning
as part of the consultation process.
Members were present at gatherings
sponsored by specialist industry and lobby
groups, including lawyers and community
advocates, to inform their constituents
about the planning review. We articulated
our key message at these forums – over
and over again. We wrote about the
importance of health in the new Planning
Act in a variety of publications, including
this column and a special issue of New
Planner in mid-2012.
Finally, armed with the stakeholders’
agreed ‘key ask’ we had a strong, focused
and clear message, accompanied by the
research evidence, to deliver to politicians.
We participated in the political process as
opportunities arose, including meetings
with the co-chairs of the first stage of
the Planning Review, presentations to
key groups such as the Health Minister’s
Advisory Committee on Preventative Health,
and representations to relevant Ministers.
We do not know which action, of those
presented here, was the most important.
We believe that it was a combination of
all – and no doubt included the influence
of specific individuals along the way. We
are certain that being ready to deliver the
key message about healthy planning in
a strategic and coordinated manner was
central to the inclusion of not one, but two,
health objectives in the Planning Bill 2013.
We are delighted to be writing our healthy
built environments column for the sixth
year. 2015 will no doubt be another
challenging, as well as interesting, time
for us all. We are hopeful that the NSW
State Government election will mean re-
activating a reinvigorated planning system
that has the promotion of healthy built
environments embedded in legislation as a
key objective
Healthy Built Environments Healthy Built Environments: The Politics of Bringing Health into Planning
Susan Thompson FPIA, Professor in Planning
and Associate Director (Healthy Built Environments),
City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
Peter McCue, Executive Officer, NSW Premier’s Council
for Active Living (PCAL)
Including health within planning requires political and key decision
maker support at the highest levels. Building a legislative mandate for
healthy planning is critical for long lasting political and professional
commitment towards the creation of healthy built environments. This
is also about developing policy from a research evidence base – and
as readers of this column know, there is an extensive body of research
and practice to support healthy built environments.
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 27
When Part 3A was repealed, I was working as a consultant, specialising mainly in major industrial and infrastructure approvals. Viewed through this prism, the net impact of the Part 3A repeal seemed limited. Beyond a few changes in terminology, there seemed to be little change in the process and outcome of the new approval pathway when compared to Part 3A.
Four years down the track I’ve returned to review this event, as what turned out to be the most significant update to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) in recent times, to look again at the political drivers behind the decision and at the wider impacts of the repeal. In light of this political impact on planning process, I discuss how planners can better engage with relevant political discourse.
What Was Achieved?
In addition to its role for infrastructure and industry, Part 3A was an effective planning
approval pathway for delivering housing and employment as it allowed for projects to be considered on merit and moved above local politics, enabling the State government to make strategic decisions. It also fast-tracked their delivery, avoiding the cumbersome and time consuming rezoning process. However, the same reasons that made Part 3A so effective, also made it politically unpopular. Some Councils, and some sectors of the general public, felt that by bypassing local government, Part 3A projects disenfranchised local communities and reduced the ability of Councils to shape the direction of their LGA. For these reasons, repealing Part 3A was widely supported by the printed press, and formed a key part of the 2011 State Liberal Party’s election campaign.
What Was The Impact?
Once elected, the new government was able to deliver its election pledge and Part 3A was repealed. This created a
major development hiatus for most of 2011, caused by uncertainty in the approval process. However, by year’s end, things resumed as per before for those developments scheduled within the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRDSEPP).
Following the repeal of Part 3A, it became clear that, far from just being a nominal procedural change for major development, the new approval pathway excluded any development that was not scheduled within the new SRDSEPP as being State Significant. Importantly this included all residential and commercial projects that could have previously used the Part 3A approval process, many of which may have held significance at a State level, but were not State Significant.
Many of the large-scale urban renewal projects with strong planning merit that had relied on Part 3A were forced back into the unpredictable realm of local politics. The inability to use a Concept Plan to rezone land, for example, has resulted in many projects becoming bogged down in the lengthy, cumbersome and uncertain planning proposal process. Further, the flexibility offered by Section 75W was lost by projects forced to show that they are substantially the same development when assessed under Part 4. Thus, the repeal of Part 3A limited the private sector’s ability to help State government meet its self imposed growth targets. This impact is still being felt today.
The delivery of new housing is a key priority in the recently released Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, A Plan for Growing Sydney. The Plan shows delivery of housing at a rate not seen since the turn of the century (see Figure 1). However, it should be noted that a large percentage of these new dwellings are the legacy of Part 3A applications. What remains to be seen is how the current EP&A Act will be able to deliver the ambitions of the Strategy, and only time will tell if, without the housing delivery previously offered by Part 3A, future housing delivery can continue to grow to meet the Government’s ambitious targets.
NSW Young PlannersPlanning and Politics Reviewed
Harry Quartermain MPIA, Urban Planner, JBA
In early 2012, following the repeal of Part 3A, I wrote a short opinion piece for the National Young Planners’ publication, Connections, that summarised the impact of the legislative change. This column reflects on some of the conclusions that I reached at the time and the role of planners within the profession’s continuous dialogue with politics.
28 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Figure 1: Housing delivery in Sydney and Central Coast (Source: A Plan for Growing Sydney, 2014)
revie
w
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 29
Attainable Delivery?
Subregional growth targets, which were included in the Draft Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, are conspicuously absent from the latest Strategy. The projected growth figures are expected to form part of the anticipated sub-regional strategies. However, a flavour of what we might expect can be seen in the Parramatta Road Urban Renewal Strategy. The scale of desired urban renewal along Parramatta Road could provide an early insight into the level growth-target uplift that we can expect to see across other sub-regions. The question that remains is this: without an effective tool for delivering growth, can planners deliver the targets?
Planning and Politics
Although planning and politics share many individual stakeholders, planners and politicians often answer to different stakeholder groups and work to different timeframes.
One criticism sometimes levelled against politicians is an inability to see beyond the next electoral cycle. This criticism is particularly acute when dealing with 25 or 50 year growth targets, which may spell significant change for key electorates.
Planners, on the other hand are often used as scapegoats for bad (or a lack of) decision making. To illustrate that this is not a phonomemon confined to NSW, in 2011, David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, took aim at planners. He labelled the ‘town hall officials who take for ever with those planning decisions’ as ‘Enemies of Enterprise’.
What Can We Do?
As planners there are a few things that we can do to help maintain the necessary
balance between procedural certainty and political flexibility, to ensure that the impact of political actions, be they legislative changes or imposed growth targets, do not affect our ability to deliver truly sustainable development.
• Recognise the political drivers – planning does not exist in a bubble. Being aware of the political landscape, including electoral cycles and public opinion, can give you a better understanding of what development is likely to be approved, both where and, importantly, when. This knowledge is relevant regardless of whether you’re working in the public or private sector.
• Keep your eye on the big picture – planners are supposed to plan for everyone. Take a collaborative, not combative, approach when negotiating an outcome. Remember that each level of government may have its own agenda but that when a good outcome is delivered, everyone wins.
• Be part of the conversation – political mandates derive from local communities. Involvement with the conversations that inform public opinion or political policy doesn’t have to be adversarial and shouldn’t be left to the last minute. With planning and community engagement being increasingly interconnected, organisations such as PIA and IAP2 offer useful resources to meaningfully engaging communities.
• Advocate – if a conversation turns to planning and the action (or inaction) of planners, don’t be afraid to advocate for your profession. Planning is too often used as a scapegoat by the press and by
politicians to explain why something has (or has not) happened. There are many avenues through which you can make your voice heard and offer a counterargument. Planners help make the world a better place; be proud of what you do
NSW Young Planners Committee
Christina Livers AEC Group(State Convenor)
Harry Quartermain JBA(NSW National Rep)
Elle Clouston Place Design Group
Chris Forrester JBA
Holly Patrick DLA
Rachel Gardner
Laura Schmahmann SGS
Catherine Gilbert USYD
Vijay Prabhu Architectus
Mitchell Davies UNSW
Chantelle Chow DP&E
Andre Szczepanksi JBA
Upcoming events…
March Site visit to Harold Park University student welcomes April Professional Development event – How Developers Think May Young Planners National Conference (YPConnect) in Melbourne
For more details visit: www.planning.org.au/nsw OR www.facebook.com/nswyoungplanners
Reprinted with permission of Cathy Wilcox, Fairfax Media.
30 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Out-of-Town Shopping
Shopping centres and out-of-town malls are
declining faster than high streets. There is a
danger that larger spaces will turn into empty
buildings, with only tumbleweed passing
through them. It seems increasingly clear that
shopping is no longer in any sense a basis
for economic development, since people now
often use out-of-town shopping centres –
where they do use them – as vast showrooms
for the online retailers. This is particularly
true when you have to queue in the car to get
there – it tends to be easier to go online and
get stuff fast and cheaply, maybe picking it
up at a store, using ‘click and collect’. If we
don’t know exactly what we want, then a bit
of convenient browsing tends to require old-
fashioned bricks and mortar, but preferably
with a whiff of personality about it.
The new laws of retailing suggest you need
either be cheap (Aldi) or convenient (my
corner store). You have to either be easy
(Amazon) or authentic (my own local High
Street). There is no obvious role for anything
in between, especially if it involves being
peered at suspiciously by security guards,
pushing trolleys down miles of identical
aisles, or a long crawl out of town. That is
why convenience stores are now the darlings
of the retailers. It isn’t going to be easy for
high streets either, but all that talk about
whether they can survive the onslaught from
out-of- town retailing has gone a little quiet.
David Boyle, TCPA January 2015
Nuclear Waste
The search for a suitable location to
dispose of the UK’s existing and estimated
future higher-activity nuclear waste
has been going on since the Flowers
Report declared in 1976 that a solution
was necessary. A solution would need
to demonstrate ‘beyond reasonable
doubt that a method exists to ensure the
safe containment of long-lived highly
radioactive waste for the indefinite future’.
Despite repeated efforts to devise and
implement policies to achieve this goal,
there is no disposal solution in sight.
Increasingly, it becomes apparent that a
Geological Disposal Facility is a distant
prospect – if not a mirage. In reality,
storage is the long-term solution,
stretching into the next century. That
means not only Sellafield, site of the
existing storage for much of the UK’s
long-lived highly radioactive waste, but
coastal sites all around the country where
radioactive wastes are already stored
might see spent fuel from new build added,
as well as waste that will arise as power
stations are decommissioned.
In the next century, with the power stations
closed and the wastes in deteriorating
conditions stored on sites vulnerable to
storm surges and sea-level rise, the legacy
left to distant generations will be costly to
maintain and dangerous to manage. The
immediate priority is clean-up at Sellafield
and decommissioning at other sites.
New-build, if it happens, will compound
and extend a problem that is barely
manageable for future generations to deal
with. Cumbria, for decades to come, will be
the main, although not the only, site for the
management of the nation’s nuclear legacy.
Andrew Blowers, TCPA December 2014
Industrial Farming
A new technology that is likely to have a
major impact on the environment is that
which enables growing food in a closed
environment rather than in open fields.
International SnippetsDavid Winterbottom LFPIA
Sellafield – site of the existing storage for much of the UK’s long-lived highly radioactive waste (Source: www.gallery3.shippen.org.uk)
Vertical farm in Vancouver, Canada (Source: www.agritecture.com)
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 31
ne
ws
Large ‘vertical’ farms are appearing as far
apart as the Netherlands and Singapore. To
date, the largest such farm is in California
and covers 3.25 hectares. With growing
racks stacked six high, it houses 17 million
plants at a time and grows 14 lettuce crops
a year. Interestingly, the tallest vertical
farm – 18-storeys high – was built by the
US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency not to grow food, but to produce
genetically modified plants that make
proteins useful in vaccines.
In Britain, the salad-producing company
Florette has invested £2 million in a 10
hectare high-tech multi-span polytunnel
complex in Essex and expects to quadruple
this in size within three years.
In a revealing remark, the company’s
Managing Director Neil Sanderson says that
the development ‘will allow all-year-round
cultivation of materials we presently have to
import’. Never before have I met a farmer
who has described his crops as ‘materials’.
Paul Burrall, TCPA November 2014
In Planning We Trust
An aspect of change that has remained
relatively under-discussed in our sector
is the growing role of the private sector
in the planning system. Given the scale
of involvement that consultancies
now have in all aspects of the
governance, management, regulation
and implementation of planning, it is
remarkable how little scrutiny there is of
their practices, motivations and influence,
and of the impact they have upon (public)
planning decisions and outcomes.
An incremental process of change and
a re-orientation is occurring through
the development of a set of co-evolved
planning practices. This has involved
change across three related spheres:
the design of the system; policy content;
and decision making. The governance of
planning over the past three decades has
not kept pace with them, cumulatively,
in order to effectively oversee the public
interest criterion.
New policies and regulations may be
needed to ensure that, whatever the
distribution of planning activity across
sectors or across scales, planning remains
effective. The transparent determination
and scrutiny of the assessment of public
interest is needed. This involves, first,
better research and evidence to inform
change, and secondly, the implementation
of mechanisms to ensure that all those
involved in providing evidence and informing
decision makers on planning matters are
acting with integrity and are openly and fully
cognisant of the public interest criterion.
Gavin Parker, Emma Street, Mike Raco and
Sonia Freire-Trigo, TCPA December 2014
Regeneration the Chinese Way
‘Hutongs’ are the traditional residential
neighbourhoods in Chinese cities. The
term means ‘lane’ or ‘street’. Traditional
hutongs remain crowded, cramped
and poorly maintained, and have poor
standards of plumbing and sanitation. In
this context, it is hardly surprising that
traditional hutongs are under threat.
The central – and therefore those in the
most accessible and desirable areas –
hutongs have been extensively redeveloped.
But their historic significance is beginning
to be understood, and their attraction as
an alternative to high-rise living and as a
way of retaining the historic cityscape is
being appreciated. Reflecting the diverse
architectural heritage of Beijing have
been the arts-, heritage- and retail-led
regeneration projects in the historic French
Concession area which have a more
distinctively ‘artsy’ feel, a mix of design
studios, start-up boutiques, wi-fi cafés and
some original residents. Its three main
north-south lanes are intersected by east-
west alleyways, giving an authentic ‘back
streets’ feel to the area.
In reality, almost all of the area has been
demolished and rebuilt, rather than
renovated, which has involved the removal
of several thousand residents and retained
only the pattern of the lanes and the
frontages with their distinctive doorways.
The original houses would have been quite
unsuitable for the new uses – upmarket
restaurants, international coffee chains,
boutique clothes shops, and the like. Today,
the area is far too valuable to be retained
for residential use.
Martin Stott, TCPA December 2014
Changing the culture of planning
I am in the homebuilding business because
I want to build fantastic homes and
amazing places. Doing that well allows me
to make money. The same is true for most
homebuilders. Place-making is how we
earn our living. Planners and developers
are not that different: we have a common
cause; we just find it hard to connect.
Homebuilders want to work with local
authorities from a very early stage. They
want to understand the local authority’s
goals and ambitions – and they want
local authorities to understand theirs.
Homebuilders and local authorities need
to build better relationships. After all,
planning is relational: it’s about people.
Solving the current housing crisis involves
changing the culture of planning. This
is not about Policies, it’s about clarity,
consistency, and collaboration. And here,
homebuilders need to change just as
much as planners. Homebuilders and local
authorities are in the business of creating
places that work for people – for people
who are around today, and for people in
the future who have not yet been born. But
to do that, local authorities need to learn
to trust homebuilders. And homebuilders
need to earn that trust.
Tony Pidgley, TCPA January 2015
Hutongs in Beijing, China (Source: www.thechings.com)
32 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
As a result, the apartment accurately
presented life and style in pre-war
Paris. It included a painting by the 19th
century Italian artist Giovanni Boldini
(subsequently sold for Ð2.1 million).
The apartment was discovered after
Madame De Florian passed away, when
her estate was in charge of finding and
making an inventory of her personal
assets. The team that entered the
apartment for the first time compared the
experience to “stumbling into the castle of
sleeping beauty”, which was eerily silent
and covered in cobwebs
Source: www.parisapartment.wordpress.com & www.sharepowered.com
Snapped… Abandoned Paris Apartment Gives Glimpse of 1940s Stephen McMahon FPIA, Inspire Urban Design and Planning
A Paris apartment, untouched for
almost 70 years, was discovered
in 2010. Nobody had entered the
locked apartment since 1942, when
the apartment’s owner, Madame
De Florian, hastily fled the Nazi
occupation during World War II for the
south of France, never to return.
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 33
ne
ws
What are some of the experiences that
have shaped your ideas of planning and
how you approach projects?
Planning for Singapore has taught me the
value of a ‘forward planning approach’ and
the need to optimise scarce resources.
Singapore is a ‘land and resource
constrained’ city-state. It is both a country
and a city. As such, we have to cater to land
uses that most cities do not need to provide
for. Aside from earmarking land for the
usual uses such as housing, commercial,
industrial and social facilities, we also
have to cater for major infrastructure
needs such as power generation, water
catchment and waste disposal. This is a
particular challenge.
In view of our unique circumstances, we
do not have a lot of room for mistakes
when we develop. We therefore adopt a
forward-looking, long-term integrated
planning approach to ensure we have
enough land to meet our development
needs well into the future. It also helps us
identify the difficult trade offs to facilitate
decision-making, as well as prioritise
our infrastructure investments. Our
limitations make us more mindful of the
need to optimise both land and resources
such as energy and water.
My approach to planning is also shaped
by living in one of the densest cities in
the world. We place `liveability’ and
‘sustainability’ high on the agenda, and
have to be more creative in our planning
and urban design to ensure that we
mitigate the high-density environment.
Today, despite our denseness, Singapore
is regularly ranked as one of the most
liveable and attractive cities in Asia.
What do you think your greatest contribution
to the planning industry has been?
I hope I have managed to convince people
of the value and importance of good
planning and how it can help to ensure
orderly development, as well as create a
better living environment for everyone.
Planners can give a city a bold vision
and add value and identity to a place. For
example, my colleagues and I worked to
formulate a clear vision of what a new
signature image for Singapore as a global
city could be. We now have Marina Bay, a
new city extension that has created a lot of
buzz and excitement for our city.
Second, I believe that a city must pursue
design excellence. We introduced the
Architecture and Urban Design Excellence
Programme to uplift design standards
for Singapore. I felt that it was important
to create greater awareness of good
architecture and urban design. By
recognising good design through higher-
level awards, funding and incentivising good
design initiatives, and making design a key
consideration in planning submissions and
land sales in strategic areas, the city has
progressively transformed for the better.
How have you seen the role of women in
the planning profession change during
your career?
There are quite a number of women in
the planning profession in Singapore.
Their competency is increasingly being
recognised and they are entrusted with
more responsibilities. For example, I was
privileged to be the first woman appointed
to the CEO position in both the Urban
Redevelopment Authority and the Housing
Development Board in Singapore.
What do you believe are the greatest challenges for the planning profession in the future?
With rapid urbanisation and increasing complexities in managing urban growth both regionally and in cities, more countries and cities recognise the need for good planning. However, putting a plan on paper does not mean the plan will be implemented. There are many challenges to overcome. First, there is a need to align the multiple levels of planning at the federal, regional and local governments. Constant changes in political leadership in many cities make it difficult to plan long term and to make politically unpopular but necessary trade-offs. Most cities also face fiscal constraints which delay the implementation of much needed infrastructure to support the smooth functioning of the city. Planners need to find `room to manoeuvre’ and creative ways to overcome these challenges.
Good governance, proper planning processes and strong institutions need to be in place to ensure that plans can indeed be implemented. In addition, the community and stakeholders should be roped in to help shape plans and policies so that they lend support and voice to ensuring that longer term planning goals will be achieved.
How do you see the sharing of your experience as something that Australian planners can benefit from?
Given our land constraints, we have developed a high rise, high density city. We place a lot of emphasis on developing a sustainable and highly liveable city. I hope to be able to share some of the strategies we pursued to try and make Singapore a great city to live, work and play in. As many Australian cities share similar challenges as us, and are highly urbanised and increasing in density, perhaps they may find some of Singapore’s experiences useful. At the same time, I hope to learn from the success stories of other cities as well. The Congress provides a good platform for the mutual exchange of ideas
Koon Hean is a keynote speaker at Planning Congress 2015 that runs from May 13-15 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. For more information go to www.piacongress.com.au
Interview with Congress Speaker, Cheong Koon HeanCheong Koon Hean, CEO, Housing and Development Board, Singapore
Architect-turned-planner in the public service since 1981, Dr Cheong
Koon Hean is responsible for many of Singapore’s cityscapes including
one million public housing units. She’s helped uplift design standards,
values community spaces and has recently been inducted into
Singapore Women’s Hall of Fame. The PIA Women’s Network recently
asked her some questions.
Strategic and Statutory Planning Urban Design Retail and Economic Planning Planning Advice Expert Evidence and Court Appeals Development Applications Planning Proposals/Rezonings
Call DFP Planning on 9980 6933 or visit www.dfpplanning.com.au for more information.
One of the largest independent planning practices in NSW
environmental planning master planning urban design traffic planning expert evidence
www.gsaplanning.com.au 95 Paddington Street, Paddington 2021
T: (02) 9362 3364 email: [email protected]
abn: 18003667963
Gary A Shiels
Managing Director M Urb Design, M Eng Sc, M Urb Stud, LFPIA, CPP, FAPI, FAIM
George Karavanas Director
BTP, M Eng Sc, FPIA, CPP, MAITPM
Urban Design I Master Planning I Development Controls I Town Centre Studies I Visualisations I Architecture I Project Management Community Engagement I Strategic Planning
Studio GL is an award winning consultancy that specialises in blending architecture, urban design and planning. Our skills include professional design services and exceptional visual communication.
Our team brings a diversity of experience from Australia, Europe and North America and we use this expertise to develop great places that meet our clients needs at every scale.
Diana Griffiths Director Urban Design
BArch MURP(Hons)
MPIA CPP
Brigitte Buchholz Senior Urban Designer
Dipl.Ing. Arch (GER)
MPIA
Felicity Lewis Director Architecture
BArch(Hons) MArch MBA
NSW REG ARCH 6861
Gauri Torgalkar Senior Urban Designer
BArch(Hons), MArch
STUDIO GL
www.studiogl.com.auemail: [email protected]: 0434 070 823
34 | MARCH 2015 | newplanner
Monteath & Powys knows about longevity We’ve been in business for more than 60 years because of the value we place on relationships,
together with our practical and feasible approach.
Newcastle Office: P: + 61 2 4926 1388 Gunnedah Office: P: + 61 2 6742 0166 Website: www.monteathpowys.com.au
Our experienced team provide planning and environmental services from project conception to delivery for:-
Local Government State Government Private Sector
Services include:-
Development Assessment Independent Advice Strategic Planning REFs, EISs, EMPs GIS
Experts in delivering innovative & responsive planning solutions
Suite 1, 16-22 Willock Ave, Miranda 2228 P (02) 9531 2555 E m a i l @ p l a n n i n g i n g e n u i t y . c o m . a u
w w w . p l a n n i n g i n g e n u i t y . c o m . a u
Planning Ingenuity is a highly skilled specialist town planning consultancy, committed to delivering reliable value adding services in relation to all aspects of the development process throughout New South Wales.
Our Core Services:
> Applications for Development> Planning Advice & Feasibility> Appeals and Expert Witnesses> Development and Environmental Impact Assessment
Key Contacts
Lindsay Fletcher MEnvPlan FPIA CPP
F (02) 9531 2599
Jeff MeadBTP (Hons) MProDev MPIA CPP
Benjamin BlackBEnvPlan MPIA
Utilise our planning lawyers’ expertise and unrivalled experience in providing
legal services relating to land use, property development, environmental issues and Land & Environment Court proceedings
Bartier Perry is proudly sponsoring the Planning Institute Australia NSW Division’s
Toolbox Series 2014
www.bartier.com.auLevel 10, 77 Castlereagh Street Sydney
Dennis LoetherExecutive Lawyer8281 [email protected]
Mary-Lynne TaylorConsultant8281 7935
Bartier Perry is proudly sponsoring the Planning Institute of Australia NSW Division’s
Toolbox Series 2015
newplanner | MARCH 2015 | 35