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


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


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


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.


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.


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)


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.



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)


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


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


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



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


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.


ele

ctio

n m

an

ifesto


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


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.


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


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


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)


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?



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.


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.


Figure 1: Housing delivery in Sydney and Central Coast (Source: A Plan for Growing Sydney, 2014)

revie

w


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



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)


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)


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.


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


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

[email protected]

Bartier Perry is proudly sponsoring the Planning Institute of Australia NSW Division’s

Toolbox Series 2015


new planner

Documents