v0l. 63 no. 3 ISSN: 2209-0363
Editorial committee: Christopher Austin Will Back Jack Bryce Matthew Collins Aidan Johnston Jessie Oliver Alesia Shard John Van As Editor: Matthew Leman Editorial committee: Christopher Austin Rose Bateman Will Back Matthew Collins Sophie Gadaloff Jessie Oliver Alesia Shard John Van As Editor: Matthew Leman Editorial committee: Christopher Austin Will Back Nicole Bennetts Kerry Doss Aidan Johnston Jessie Oliver Alesia Shard Mellini Sloan Editor: Matthew Leman
05 06 08 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 8 20 22 24 Presidents’ messages - Shannon Batch and Alex Deutrom Megaprojects - Bhishna Bajracharya Infrastructure Funding - Kerry Doss Big Issues - Jeff Humphreys Darwin Strategies - City of Darwin Transit Oriented Development - Sean Byster-Bowles & Daniel O’Hare Gold Coast Offsets - Mikalah Koch Brisbane Housing - Brisbane City Council Housing Crisis - Martin Garred Urban Heat Island - Karine Dupre, Silvia Tavares, Brodie Smith National Policy Drivers - Landon Brown SEQ Regional Plan - Queensland State Government
Shannon Batch RPIA, PIA Qld President Planners are front and centre in many of the ‘big issues’ our communities are facing. We play an important role as the primary interface with our communities as we navigate these big issues – such as housing, infrastructure and the mega events and projects coming our way. As planners we seek to truly understand what our communities want and need and what they will need into the future – we look beyond political cycles, through trends and shifts in the economic and social fabric of our communities. We balance a wide range of interests at the property level all the way through to regional and Statewide strategies. This is no easy task. This is why I believe planners are the ultimate problem solvers. In this context it resonated with me when one of our State Conference Keynotes, Dr Tim Williams, challenged us to retake our natural role as “conductors of the orchestra”. Tim shared that he thinks things work out better when planners are in front guiding and coordinating. So lets do just that, and make beautiful music. Happy reading. Alex Deutrom MPIA, PIA NT President Welcome to the Spring edition of the Agenda – or more accurately for my Northern Territory counterparts – the build-up edition. It’s that time of year in the top end where we mourn the beautiful dry season days and hang out for the relief of rain. Within this build-up edition, titled ‘Big Issues’, we traverse the landscape of housing, infrastructure, and mega projects. It’s a timely theme as we gear up for the Northern Territory Planning Symposium which will be held in Darwin on Tuesday 14 November. We’ve got an incredible line-up of speakers and will be zooming in on these big issues in the local context. To the Queensland readers – is there a better excuse for a holiday? I hope to see you all there!
Written by Martin Garred, Director, Civity, MPIA CF Over the last 12 months, it’s fair to say that housing has been at the forefront of political and community discussion. It was only a few years ago that I recall the smallest step change in housing policy was off the table, due to our (collective) limited acceptance to, and knowledge of, alternative housing typologies. I was struggling to see a pathway forward where we, as planners, could instigate bold change in our planning systems. It was this problem that inspired me to apply for a Churchill Fellowship. In October last year, I travelled to the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden to learn how global jurisdictions are dealing with the ever-growing housing affordability challenge. I hope some of the insights in this short editorial stimulate ideas about how planners can be at the forefront of positive and solutions-focussed discussions about housing. so what is the role of planning? A fellow planner that I interviewed in Portland, Oregon (USA) adeptly summed up the role of planning: “It should facilitate good and diverse housing, that is well located and meets our human needs in society”. Whilst land use planning is just a small component of the highly complex and multi-faceted housing affordability challenge, I do contend that evidence-based land use planning responses have an important role to play as part of a broader suite of solutions needed to address our housing issues It is time to reimagine our suburban neighbourhoods Minneapolis (USA) was the first city in the United States to remove single family zoning. Across Minneapolis, up to three (3) dwellings can now be constructed as of right in all parts of the city. Progressively, at the same time Minneapolis removed all parking requirements for residential development citywide. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, noted what I consider to be the cornerstone of why such policy approaches need to be advanced, noting that: “Cities are in constant evolution, and we’ve limited that evolution by mandating that two-thirds of the city is exclusively single family”. The State of Oregon followed suit, adopting legislation at a State level which made up to four (4) dwellings as of right in all residential zones of large cities (more than 25,000 people). They regulated minimum lot sizes based on typologies, requiring a 5,000 square foot lot (464.5m2) for a triplex and 7,000 square foot (650.3m2) for a quadplex. Whilst the State didn’t mandate parking outcomes, the City of Portland removed all parking requirements for new residential developments. The approaches taken in Oregon (USA) and Minneapolis (USA) tackle the housing issue with a focus on inclusion, by applying the changes citywide. This method also means that the level of change in any street or neighbourhood is likely to be far more gradual and incremental. global solutions to our housing crisis 6 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
Reimaging our suburban neighbourhoods by potentially allowing up to four (4) dwellings as of right, would assist in increasing housing supply and diversity in our existing neighbourhoods. This policy approach is not a short-term fix to the housing crisis; rather, it is a proactive long-term approach that seeks to provide housing that caters for the broad needs of our community, both now and into the future. Inclusionary Zoning To address the growing housing affordability crisis being felt in many large cities around the world, jurisdictions are now using their land use planning system to regulate the provision of affordable housing, known as inclusionary zoning or inclusionary housing. Before I left on the Fellowship, I had a view that inclusionary zoning was not a good policy approach as it seeks to intervene and manipulate ordinary market conditions. However, the extensive discussions over the course of my Fellowship about inclusionary zoning have changed my view. As part of an overall suite of tools and where carefully implemented, I am now of the view that it can significantly assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Whilst inclusionary zoning won’t solve our housing crisis problem, it is a tool that should be used as part of a broader suite of solutions to address housing affordability. In the context of the Queensland planning framework, I believe a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy would be the most effective and should: 1. apply to projects of more than 20 dwellings; 2. be transitionally implemented to mitigate economic impacts; 3. include viability assessments at plan making and development assessment; and 4. be supported by other financial incentives. Final Thoughts I hope my Fellowship serves as a call to action to spark meaningful dialogue about the necessary policy reforms we can make to our planning systems to assist in addressing the housing crisis. Together with well informed, engaged, and inclusive communities, there is an opportunity to deliver increased housing choice and diversity for our communities. If you are interested to know more about my Fellowship, you can download a full copy of my Fellowship Report – Planning for Housing Diversity using the QR code. Alternatively, feel free to reach out. But most importantly, lets collectively make sure we are at the forefront of bold housing policy, our future generations are depending on us! Baron’s Place, Southwark, London designed by Proctor & Matthews Architects was a pilot project for prefabricated modular construction affordable housing. The prefinished modules were delivered and assembled onsite over two days and finished to completion within 14 weeks. The overall development delivers 12 ‘demountable’ temporary homes, consisting of one bedroom units and two person share apartments. The apartments are exclusively available to rent by NHS key workers. Mulberry Park is a contemporary development of 700 high quality homes, community facilities and open spaces being developed by Curo, a West of England Housing Association located in Bath in the United Kingdom. The former Defence land is being transformed into a new community, where 30% of the new homes will be affordable (75% social rent, 25% shared ownership). Boligslangen (literally, “the housing serpent”) designed by Domus Architects is in Copenhagen, Denmark. This complex has a single roof covering two separate apartment houses: Faelledhaven, which holds public housing units, and Universitetshaven, with condos and coops. Faelledhaven’s design placed emphasis on flexibility and resident influence. Apartment units are flexible and modular. the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 7
Infrastructure Funding and rollout – the key to housing supply - how hard can it be? Written by Kerry Doss, Kerry Doss Consulting Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you would know that there is a housing supply issue gripping the nation, so much so that there will be a line of people wanting to rent that rock you have been living under as their new place of residence. At the present time there is considerable effort going into making more land available for development but when the problem is looked at from a supply chain point of view it becomes apparent that having land available is one thing, but getting it supplied with appropriate infrastructure is another - and it is usually the part of the equation that requires the most effort. Opening up more land for development without solving the dilemma of infrastructure planning, funding and delivery is akin to trying to pump more sewer through an already blocked sewer line – there are two solutions – unblock the existing sewer line or build a new one to take the load. Key to the provision of infrastructure are three fundamentals: 1. appropriate land use planning; 2. infrastructure planning to support those land uses; and 3. a solid plan to fund and rollout that infrastructure. From looking at various development fronts across Queensland, while fundamentals 1 and 2 can be met with appropriate resources dedicated to the task, they still take time. Fundamental No. 3 however appears to be the link in the supply chain where the most significant improvement and changes are required if the housing supply issues we are facing are to be addressed. With all the land use and infrastructure planning done, the rather large sticking point appears to be who will fund and rollout the infrastructure, and this becomes further complicated when the landholdings are fragmented - meaning that often there is no single landholder capable of funding the delivery of large items of trunk infrastructure. At the present time, with more calls on budgets than there are funds available, local governments and water utilities are often stretched, given current funding arrangements and the recent escalation of construction costs. Development proponents are also reluctant to tie up large sums of funding in delivering trunk infrastructure particularly when adjoining parties will benefit but won’t contribute. And there we have it……all parties standing back and waiting for someone else to deliver. Schemes such as the Queensland Government’s Building Acceleration Fund and Catalyst Infrastructure Fund are useful in providing additional sources of funding (as interest free loans) however getting multiple parties to collaborate and agree on repayment terms is complicated and time consuming – how do we short circuit this? These are however also limited funds and for longer term change there is a need for all parties involved to find sustainable and equitable infrastructure funding mechanisms. The 2014 changes to the Sustainable Planning Act relating to infrastructure planning and funding were the only part of the legislation that did not get reform as part of the introduction of the Planning Act 2016…. time for some reform and new tools. This also needs be complemented by mechanisms that assist in the coordination of multiple landowners as this is crucial in dealing with fragmented landholdings and the rollout of infrastructure which serves multiple landholdings. The Greater Flagstone PDA Sub-Regional Infrastructure Agreement took three to four years to resolve and agreements for Caboolture West were also years in the making rather than months. A further complication for private parties delivering infrastructure is gaining access across land parcels held in ownership by other parties, particularly when those other parties deny access for various reasons. Provisions allowing the creation of easements for access, such as those allowed for by Section 88K of the NSW CONVEYANCING ACT 1919, might be a step in the right direction. So in answer to the question “how hard can it be?”. I’d like to say that those of you who say “there are no easy answers” aren’t looking hard enough. But unfortunately the answer is “bloody hard” and in the absence of some new solutions to this problem we will still be working with the blocked sewer line of housing supply. It’s time for some new tools and mechanisms with respect to infrastructure funding, coordination and rollout. This is hard work but without some breakthrough regarding these issues the problems are not going to go away. 8 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 9
10 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
the big issues Written by Jeff Humphreys, Principal, Jeff Humphreys Metropolitan Planning and PhD candidate, UQ I would like to respond to the “Big Issues” theme of this magazine in two parts: how we as planners actually go about approaching the big issues (and why we, the planners, should be the ones to be doing it), and secondly, what I think is the biggest, most exciting and most important issue we can address, how to intervene to shape our major metropolitan regions. Planning theorists more often make observations about how planners address relatively simpler issues, such as those involved in particular planning projects, than how to go about addressing the really big questions. There isn’t a universally-accepted preferred way to go about it. Consequently, sometimes, planners in my observation shy away from trying to nut it out, or it gets lost in the realms of politics. One of the resulting phenomena is that into the gap step shamelessly unafraid demographers and economists who crunch some numbers and come up with what are ultimately simplistic solutions to knotty problems (“get more jobs in the suburbs by improving the amenity of centres”). By the time you are reading this, the Queensland PIA conference will have heard from demographer / crusader, Simon Kuestenmacher, who will have provided you with his confident pronouncements about how we should be planning. However, as my erstwhile colleague Steve Reynolds was fond of saying, “planning isn’t a sausage machine” – you can’t just put in some facts and out comes the answer! Another populist demographer previously on a PIA conference programme, Bernard Salt, advocated that the de-centralisation of offices from central Melbourne to Geelong was an example of what we should be doing everywhere to address metropolitan planning “problems”. The Grattan Institute categorised this as “easy answers that don’t work”. I have found Friend and Hickling’s Strategic Choice Approach, set out in their book “Planning Under Pressure” (recommended), a useful way for planners to address very complex problems, such as those that exist in planning major metropolitan regions – essentially, it is a methodology for looking at the characteristics of the problem, and then trying to “reduce uncertainty” about the issues in a transparent way, potentially in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to come up with a better outcome. But here, the important message is, it should be planners who are in charge of the discourse, because our skills and experience are intrinsically oriented towards integrating disparate factors to address the big issues. Also, we are problem-focused, more than “scientists” (demographers, economists, geographers, environmental scientists) whose primary orientation is to observe, describe and explain. Courage, Comrades! Australia has a wonderful opportunity, related to its accommodating another 50% population growth in the next thirty years, of which, based on 2011 to 2019, more than 80% will be accommodated in four major metropolitan regions. Let’s work with that assertion, for now. So, the challenge is how do we ensure that these four regions optimise economic productivity, liveability, affordability, efficient movement, social equity and environmental sustainability and are culturally responsive and dynamic? One of the challenges is that despite our efforts, each region continues to expand outwards, as well as achieving some much-aspired-to urban consolidation. For example, between 2016 and 2021, 83% of Melbourne’s population growth occurred more than 20km from its centre (I was shocked!). On the other hand, jobs in Knowledge-Intensive Activities (KIA), which account for 30% of Australia’s jobs now, but 41% of Australian jobs growth between 2011 and 2021, locate primarily according to a different dynamic, the economics of agglomeration. Evidence is that the KIA jobs and the greatest numbers of well-paid jobs will substantially locate in the centres of these four major metropolitan regions. It’s the job of planners to get very hard-headed about where jobs will be found in the future and how that will impact on our cities, and not fall prey to whimsical (even wishful) thinking about the potential of remote-working, for example. Have you read the Productivity Commission’s very reasoned report on that topic ‘Working from Home’, 2021? Brisbane’s Inner 5km from 2006 to 2021 more or less consistently had 34% of the jobs in the Brisbane Urban Area (BUA) - which includes Brisbane, Ipswich Logan and Moreton Bay -(having grown from 360,000 to 420,000 between 2016 and 2021, in the middle of COVID-19 lockdown), 47% of the BUA jobs paying more than $75k p.a. and 56% of KIA jobs. The contiguous LGAs together have about half the population (and resident workers), about 31% of the jobs, 22% of the higher-paid jobs and 18% of the KIA jobs (that is, 61 local jobs for every 100 resident workers). My conclusions: SEQ’s economic wellbeing, efficiency and social equity are strongly related to optimising the productivity of the Brisbane Inner 5km and promoting effective connections by public transport from the outer BUA suburbs and other parts of the SEQ region to the central area of Brisbane. It is not the only objective of course, but it is a critically important part of where we need to go. I haven’t tried in this article to critique the latest draft SEQ Regional Plan – however, I suggest it can be looked at through the “strategic frame” that I have described. Oh, by the way, I think that as a result, we will ultimately need the exotic pine forests and Rocky Point canefields for partial urban development. The “Revised Broad Dominant Concept” is a better idea. the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 11
Sponsored article by City of Darwin City of Darwin’s award-winning strategies to tackle climate change have taken out the 2023 Planning Institute of Australia’s National Most Outstanding Strategic Planning Award. City of Darwin’s award-winning strategies to tackle climate change have taken out the 2023 Planning Institute of Australia’s National Most Outstanding Strategic Planning Award. Darwin is hot and getting hotter. The city has seen records of increasingly higher average temperatures, more days over 35 degrees, and more varied weather patterns. Indeed, in 2019 local government City of Darwin declared a Climate Emergency. But how could a local government tackle an issue of this magnitude while continuing to create a vibrant, creative, innovative and healthy city? The answer was developing a suite of truly integrated strategies, that contained practical actions and initiatives that will facilitate change. Strategies that work on their own for specific targets and together, to deliver City for People. City of Colour, the strategic vision and directions for Darwin’s future. And, importantly, strategies that support one of City of Darwin’s overarching strategic directions, for a Cool, Clean and Green city. City of Darwin’s internal planning team set about developing separate strategies and identifying cross-over opportunities. Its recently completed suite of three strategic plans – the 2030 Climate Emergency, 2030 Greening Darwin and 2030 Movement Strategies – form a multi-disciplinary course of actions to progress from current state and the necessary evolution of the planned city environment. Aligning the strategies and ongoing evaluation of projects underpinned by scientific testing will continue to reinforce strong decision making, funding proposals and advocacy programs. “I’m very proud of our own City of Darwin teams whose critical and creative thinking has resulted in powerful, meaningful and actionable strategies,” said City of Darwin CEO Simone Saunders. Top End Council Comes Out On Top 12 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
Written by Dr Bhishna Bajracharya, Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Bond University Introduction Megaprojects, typically costing more than $1 billion, are transforming urban landscapes worldwide, with massive building and infrastructure endeavours such as hotels, sporting arenas, convention centres, highways, railways, airports, and redevelopment of underutilised urban land. These projects often involve multiple global and national stakeholders attracting transnational investments. Although megaprojects can contribute to innovation and productivity, they also present many planning challenges impacting the economy, society, and environment. Some of the projects face uncertainties, cost overruns, community opposition and long-term delays. What is the multifaceted nature of megaprojects in Brisbane and their driving forces for development? What are the challenges and implications of megaprojects on the city and Southeast Queensland? This article examines these questions by briefly looking at the Queen’s Wharf Brisbane as an example to illustrate the challenges and implications of megaprojects (the focus is primarily on building projects rather than infrastructure developments here). The Megaproject Landscape in Brisbane Brisbane is experiencing a major urban transformation with several ongoing and planned megaprojects. The cityscape is being reshaped by initiatives like Queen’s Wharf Brisbane ($3.6 billion), Cross River Rail ($5.4 billion), Brisbane Metro ($1.2 billion), Brisbane Live ($2 billion), Waterfront Brisbane ($2.5 billion), Victoria Park Redevelopment ($1 billion) and Northshore Precinct ($12 billion). The announcement of Brisbane hosting the 2032 Olympics has provided an impetus for further proposals for expanding sports facilities, commercial developments, and infrastructure upgrades. The driving forces behind megaprojects in Brisbane are its rapid growth, economic potential, and aspirations for international recognition. These projects are considered catalysts for job creation, economic stimulation, property development and elevating Brisbane’s global status as a new world city. Queen’s Wharf Brisbane Queens Wharf Brisbane, an integrated resort development, is one of the most significant megaproject developments in the heart of Brisbane, covering about 10 per cent of the CBD. The project, expected to complete around 2024, involves the state government leasing prime urban land to the private sector - Destination Brisbane Consortium. The state government enacted the Economic Development Act 2012 to fast-track the development as a priority development area (PDA), which bypassed local government planning processes. The development proponents see the project as transforming the Brisbane CBD skyline with iconic landmarks, repurposing heritage buildings, reusing underutilised riverfront areas under freeways for public parks, and linking it with South Bank through a pedestrian bridge. While the development was promoted as a significant project creating jobs and stimulating the economy, concerns have been raised regarding the public benefit, giving air rights over public streets for the casino, and the project’s planning process. Challenges and Implications of Megaprojects Key challenges and implications of megaprojects in Brisbane and Southeast Queensland include: 1. Alignment with long-term plans: Ensuring that the cumulative impacts of diverse megaprojects align with the city and region’s long-term strategic plans. 2. Urban governance: Successful megaproject execution requires bipartisan political commitments and longterm coordination to serve the larger public interest. 3. Privatisation of public spaces: Concerns arise over limited access to amenities with the privatisation of public spaces in megaprojects. 4. Risk management: Meeting tight deadlines and budgets can lead to significant financial risks for the project and safety concerns for construction workers. 5. Resource allocation: Megaprojects may divert resources and labour from other essential initiatives, such as affordable housing, exacerbating existing planning challenges for the region. To address these challenges, decision-makers and stakeholders must comprehensively evaluate the implications of megaprojects on urban development. Lessons from successful projects worldwide can provide valuable insights into planning, governance, and community engagement. Likewise, a holistic project lifecycle analysis (from initiation, planning, design, construction, to operation) can maximise the long-term benefits of these projects while managing risks at each stage. In conclusion, while megaprojects can offer opportunities for urban transformation and economic growth in Brisbane and Southeast Queensland, they also present several challenges that require careful consideration and planning. By aligning these projects with long-term plans, addressing governance issues, ensuring equitable public benefits, and conducting comprehensive lifecycle analyses, megaprojects can contribute to sustainable and inclusive urban development in Brisbane and Southeast Queensland. Megaproject Challenges in Urban Transformation: Implications for Brisbane and Southeast Queensland the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 13
A summary of PIA State Conference paper by Sean BysterBowles and Daniel O’Hare, Bond University The Gold Coast is one of the nation’s most attractive and rapidly growing lifestyle cities, but its auto-age upbringing has left it with a deeply ingrained relationship with the motor car, and highly unsustainable growth patterns to match. The city has made a number of attempts to break this auto-dependency - most recently with the successful delivery of the light rail from Helensvale to Broadbeach - but there remains a golden opportunity that is yet to be fully harnessed. Since the heavy rail line was reintroduced in the mid-1990s, there have been several attempts to achieve complementary land use and transport outcomes with the co-location of key shopping centres and residential catchments. While there was clear intent to establish a structural relationship between public transit and the city’s growth areas, it only takes a brief visit to any one of these town centres to see that attempts at transit oriented development (TOD) have been consistently derailed. Despite considerable attempts at master-planning, almost all of these centres have squandered their “blank canvas” greenfield sites and failed to develop an integrated urban relationship to the heavy rail stations, and in some instances, even lack the proximity to be considered TOD at all. So, after decades of master planning and multiple prior attempts, why is it that the city repeatedly falls short on implementing TOD on the heavy rail line? To explore this question, a study was conducted on the planning and delivery of the city’s newest town centres in Coomera and Pimpama. Despite genuine intentions for TOD in both cases, the outcomes present something more akin to “transit adjacent development” (TAD) - developments that are located in proximity to public transit, but lack any meaningful relationship to the transit station or walkable catchment. In addition, both developments are characterised by singular uses and conventional car parking arrangements synonymous with classic big-box shopping centre development. The findings of this study point to a common set of influencing factors that challenge the existing narratives around why TOD is unsuccessful. Firstly, the timing of infrastructure and surrounding development is critical, with the delayed delivery of either resulting in the proliferation of park’n’ride areas that encourage driving and waste highly valuable developable land. In the case of the Coomera Town Centre, the rail Town Centres on the Line: a TAD short of TOD outcomes present something more akin to transit adjacent development 14 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
station was provided some 20 years before any meaningful residential densities occurred, necessitating a swathe of park’n’ride areas to service the station. On the flipside, commitment to the Pimpama station lagged 10-15 years behind the explosive residential development in the area, resulting in a sub-par station site 500 metres from what was already a “rail adjacent” town centre, and in turn, another swathe of open-air parking. A key issue here lies in an apparent “chicken or the egg” model for infrastructure delivery, where the determining factors for the timing and implementation of heavy rail infrastructure are dictated by the growth and development occurring around it, but the infrastructure itself is required to guide good growth outcomes. From this, there is an identified gap between the strategic planning intention for TOD, and the implementation of statutory mechanisms to mandate it. Because of an increasingly passive approach to TOD policy making at a regional level, the responsibility for TOD has been almost entirely devolved to local government. However, the politics of local government can be a key impediment to the shifts in density and parking required to make TOD work. The narratives around planning, density and parking are so deeply reinforced and ingrained that they have become deeply emotional, and thus, deeply political issues. These topics of development are a consistent point of friction for planning, as misinformation in the public sphere is often highly influential in the short-term electoral cycles of local government. The findings of this study challenge many existing narratives around why the Gold Coast has been unsuccessful at TOD. Whilst the outcome itself is arguably outdated, attaining the open, boulevard street layouts sought by TOD from a bigbox shopping mall developer is nigh on impossible without the appropriate hierarchy of mandates. In this sense, both the Coomera and Pimpama case studies demonstrate that the primary failure of TOD has not been in the intended planning outcomes, but from these outcomes not aligning with the product intended to be developed (by Queensland Transport and private developers), and the lack of statutory provisions to enforce their amalgamation. With the upcoming Brisbane Olympic Games, it is imperative that the city takes the opportunity to address issues of urban sprawl and transportation options in a way that supports the existing and intended city structure. Whether this occurs via small-scale interventions around the existing stations, or through the long-overdue development of the Varsity Station Village site, the Gold Coast has the perfect conditions to get our city back on track. the findings challenge many existing narratives the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 15
Written by Mikalah Koch, A/Principal Environmental Policy Officer (Offsets Team), City of Gold Coast In 2012, the City of Gold Coast (City) developed an environmental offset program, to restore critically important fauna corridor pinch points within the city’s biodiversity areas network and in alignment with other City conservation programs, help to achieve the City’s ambitious target of 51 per cent native vegetation cover across the Gold Coast’s land area. The City’s environmental offset program consists of three core policies - an external investment offset policy to direct negotiations with third parties for delivery of works associated with impacts under Federal and State offset legislation; a planning scheme policy to address impacts on matters of local environmental significance; and the early development of an internal offset policy to guide the delivery of offsets associated with impacts from the City’s municipal works. To attract offset projects and partnerships, it was important that the City’s environmental offset program was structured to provide assistance to entities unfamiliar with their offset obligations under Federal or State Government legislation, who are inexperienced in ecological restoration, or who do not have access to suitable land to undertake works. Unlike traditional offset brokers, the City, with its large conservation reserve system, experienced restoration team and expert knowledge of offset legislation, is in the unique position of being a ‘one-stop-shop’ for entities seeking to discharge their offset liabilities. The City’s approach to delivering environmental offset restoration works, through its innovative approach to offering a full offset solution to external partners, has proven to be highly successful. The program and its partnerships have delivered more than $11.8 million in direct restoration and rehabilitation funding for significant ecosystems and habitats, with 17 active offset sites currently being restored, covering more than 151 hectares. This in turn has also reduced maintenance costs for the City’s conservation estate, through revegetation of areas otherwise requiring regular mowing. An additional 17 South-East Queensland koala habitat advanced offset sites covering 94 hectares are also approved within the Gold Coast. The koala habitat trees from these advanced offset sites can now be sold on to those entities looking to discharge their environmental offset obligations for impacts on koala habitat. Delivery of environmental offsets on the Gold Coast are prioritised within critically important fauna corridor pinch points and significant areas within the city’s biodiversity areas network. The city prides itself on the robustness of each offset site delivery, ensuring that biodiverse plantings and restoration to pre-clear regional ecosystems is at the forefront of all delivery outcomes. The quality of the City’s offset delivery was recently evidenced though the use of a koala habitat offset site by home ranging koalas. In some cases, home ranges of some koalas were found to consist almost completely within the restored offset site. The program is now in a phase of expansion, through investigations into marine plant offsetting, fish passage offsetting and carbon offsetting, as well as the potential to expand the stakeholders that the program partners with. The City sees the legacy of this program not only being the strong on-ground environmental outcomes achieved to date, but the potential for the initiative to be a pilot program for other local governments across Australia. GOLD COAST ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSET PROGRAM 16 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
arup.com © Getty Arup is at the forefront of creating a more sustainable and inclusive world through city-shaping projects, which benefit our people, our places and our planet. Building a sustainable future is our most critical challenge. the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 17
Urban Heat Island: measure, visualise, change; a 3-year project in the City of Ipswich Written by Professor Karine Dupre (Griffith University), Dr Silvia Tavares (University of the Sunshine Coast), Brodie Smith (City of Ipswich) Heatwaves are Australia’s deadliest natural hazard. While research has demonstrated the negative impacts of urban heat islands on human health and comfort, there is a need to expand knowledge to understand its relationship with urban design and planning and its effects on people’s experiences of a place. Climate responsive urban design and planning offers the potential to trigger benign microclimates and support citizen’s health and resilience, as well as contributing to saving energy in buildings. It is within this context that the City of Ipswich has partnered with Griffith University and the University of the Sunshine Coast to conduct a three-year analysis of possible existing urban heat islands (UHI), residents’ perceptions about urban heat and how changes in urban design might mitigate these effects. The objective of this study was to identify viable solutions to mitigate UHI and other undesirable climate change-related impacts. This study is based on three case studies located in the Ipswich CBD and one new suburban development in Ripley. We combined the following approaches: 1. the use of weather sensors to quantitatively investigate microclimate conditions in these areas; 2. a qualitative urban design (UD) analysis to identify key UD solutions impacting urban microclimates; 3. computer modelling based on ENVI-met simulations to showcase potential scenarios with improved microclimate performance; and 4. a combined survey/ Virtual Reality experience/ workshop to identify people’s experiences of urban spaces and microclimates. Three main findings emerged from the study. Firstly, we now have the measurement and simulation tools to understand the reasons for UHI and propose relevant fine-grained mitigation strategies. In other words, it means that evidence-based data (not approximations) should be used to drive local UD solutions and planning. This would also help combat generic solutions and preconceived ideas. For example, it was measured that white concrete slab was almost 10 degrees cooler than dry grass (watering matters!) on the same day and time. Practically, sensors and simulations provide insightful microclimate data in localised areas. However, there are limitations to the sensors’ deployment at the full city scale, including: costs, reliability of internet and/or batteries, installation requirements and criminal behaviour (one of our sensors was stolen). Using Citizen Science projects, namely when the public voluntarily helps conduct scientific research (to learn more see citizenscience.org.au), could provide an interesting alternative and engagement opportunity. In the same way, there are only a handful of 3D modelling climate simulation experts in Australia. However, if climate studies were required at the time of a development application, there is no doubt that it would foster quicker training and literacy both for councils and other key stakeholders such as developers and planning firms. Secondly, our results show that heat mitigation was not sufficiently taken into consideration in new developments since they performed similarly to older urban fabric. This means that planning schemes and policies have not yet 18 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
addressed heat mitigation enough or they are not well implemented. This finding reinforces the recommendation to require climate analysis for DAs, but also, as mentioned by several developers we workshopped with, making accessible the lessons learnt from previous developments, as well as improving turf area management (both by developers and council). Thirdly, our surveys and workshops show that residents are already knowledgeable and aware about the effects of urban heat, not only regarding their own well-being, but also how it impacts their relationship with the built environment. Therefore, priority should be given to the next step: empowering their engagement in heat mitigation. Furthermore, in most gentrified areas, the surface of privately owned and managed built areas is largely superior to that of public space (including streets). This means that these private stakeholders need to be supported to engage with urban heat mitigation, otherwise the single efforts of councils will not lead to the best mitigation outcomes. However, residents also identified barriers that would need to be addressed to be supported. The threetop barriers were: 1. Knowing the process (improve communication to empower residents with regularly updated website); 2. Knowing the benefits (constantly clarify what residents can gain from mitigating urban heat); and 3. Addressing competing priorities (systematically clarify the end goal by communicating about the bigger question. For example, in the case of replacing car park by trees, providing evidence-based rationale and evidence would benefit everyone’s health and comfort). In summary, 16 recommendations stem from this 3-year project, amongst which six are to support better planning. They include: 1. Require climate studies for development applications; 2. Train the development application assessors about climate-responsive design and make sure they can advise developers about the best design solutions to mitigate urban heat according to the climate study. This requires a case-by-case approach; 3. Develop a ‘heat-mitigation package with all mitigation options’ to inform people of the consequences when some options are opted out. For example, options could include choice of materials with better albedo, installation of more greenery and shading devices, etc.; 4. Introduce an innovation criterion in development application assessment processes to support new ideas or solutions; 5. Develop a matrix for the systematic assessment of the impacts of an urban heat-related policy/law at 1-, 3- and 5-year milestones. It will provide evidence concerning the benefits of this policy/law and assist in decision-making; and 6. Develop a Citizen Science project to collect data and help council to locate potential UHI and best practices. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that innovation and technology can support the strategies to mitigate UHI, as well as enhance engagement and understanding among communities. Most importantly, it provides a sound basis for action and better planning - which the City of Ipswich is committed to. the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 19
20 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
Sponsored article by Brisbane City Council Planning and supporting the supply of affordable and diverse housing for a growing population is one of the most complex challenges facing cities today. Brisbane is in an enviable position. Our subtropical lifestyle, clean and green credentials, and strong economy positions our city as one on the rise, with a future alive with opportunity. We are Australia’s fastest growing capital city welcoming upwards of 275 new residents every week and growing at a rate three times that of Sydney. We are also the epicentre of the booming South East Queensland region that is expected to be home to almost six million people by 2046. Not only is our population getting bigger - the way we live is also changing with household size, shifting demographics and lifestyle trends altering the type and size of dwellings people want. In 2023, a set of complex macroeconomic conditions including rising interest rates and construction industry challenges are applying intense pressure on the housing market. But with a track record of planning excellence, Brisbane City Council is well placed to respond. Council recently released a trio of integrated planning strategies to facilitate housing supply and diversity in the right location at the right time. The industrial strategy, Brisbane: Our Productive City was released in October 2022 to ensure a solid and sustainable economic foundation. This strategy seeks to build Brisbane’s global competitiveness and grow higher value industries. Strategically important industrial land will be renewed based on future demand, emerging industrial building typologies and improved amenity for workers. Separately, land that does not have long-term value for industrial purposes will transition to other employment and residential uses. In March 2023, Council released the city’s housing and homelessness strategy. Brisbane’s Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out actions and initiatives across four key priority themes that will deliver affordable and diverse housing choices for a population that is both rapidly growing and changing. At its heart, Brisbane’s Sustainable Growth Strategy is antisprawl and places the citywide preservation of Brisbane’s unique character and rich natural environment front and centre. It focuses on supporting the right type of housing in the right locations, particularly in areas that are already established and have existing access to transport options. Council will continue to ensure new residential buildings are appropriately designed to suit our climate and lifestyle. Brisbane’s Inner City Strategy, released in April 2023, is a planning vision and framework to manage growth and the ongoing revitalisation of the inner city. It provides a strategic overview of how Council will create a greener, more prosperous, and people-first city, while celebrating and protecting Brisbane’s unique character. It is a vision for our inner city in the lead up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games and beyond. Brisbane City Council is responding to current housing challenges in a way that captures and protects Brisbane’s lifestyle, while catering for the ongoing, rapid growth that is expected to continue for many years. Responding to housing and employment challenges the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 21
NATIONAL DRIVERS OF PLANNING POLICY Written by Landon Brown, Policy and Research Officer, PIA Ongoing changes to urban policy and machinery of government at the Federal level present challenges for planning across Australia. Major report releases have also created dialogue on the reform of state and territory planning systems. Most recently, decarbonisation plans announced for multiple sectors, including the built environment, are likely to frame a growing role for planning in climate policy. These national policy drivers have potential implications for the everyday work of planners in Queensland, as they flow downstream into State and Local government policy. Each are discussed briefly below. Refocus on housing and urban policy The October 2022 Federal budget announced a National Housing Accord between the Commonwealth, states and territories, Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), superannuation funds and property industry. Its headline statement: an aspiration national target of one million new, well-located homes from 2024-2029. This figure is similar to the approximately 985,000 homes built in the five years to March 2022, although completion rates have since declined. Regardless, the Accord is a significant step towards greater institutional investment in housing and alignment of Federal and State housing policy. One of the ‘immediate actions’ within the Accord is ‘improving zoning, planning and land release’. This commits State and Territory governments to expedite rezoning in well-located areas, utilise state land for housing, and align local planning schemes with long-term housing preferences. 22 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
The May 2023 Budget followed with funding for a National Urban Policy (NUP), developed by a new Cities and Suburbs Unit (CSU) within the Federal Department of Infrastructure. PIA’s policy team recently met with CSU staff, and will remain engaged during policy development. PIA CEO Matt Collins was also recently invited onto the National Urban Policy Forum, which will advise the Government on the NUP and regular State of the Cities reports. Major reports set the agenda Two major reports released by National agencies in 2023 are also influencing planning discourse and reform agendas across Australia. The National Housing Finance Investment Corporation (NHFIC) was established in 2018 to distribute finance and grant funding for housing and supporting infrastructure. Their flagship State of the Nation’s Housing Report 2022- 23 estimates that coinciding trends for strong household formation and slowing supply additions since the pandemic will cause a deficit of 106,300 dwellings nationally by 2027. This is expected to be most severe for mediumhigh density dwelling types, which are more sensitive to investment activity. Higher interest rates and lower property prices were identified as the main causes of weaker development activity, but planning assessment was also cited a barrier. The Productivity Commission’s second 5-year report: ‘Advancing Prosperity’ was also released earlier this year. It briefly acknowledges the importance of spatial policy, but argues that planning overly restricts competition between businesses and reduces the responsiveness of the housing market to demand. This is borne out in a recommendation for more flexible planning and zoning. Both NHFIC and Productivity Commission reports emphasise the need for administrative efficiency and fewer restrictions within planning systems. While these are positive ideas, neither report fully articulates the importance of planning to shape the location and quality of development – to put the right housing in the right places. Decarbonisation plans In the realm of climate policy, Minister for Climate and Energy Chris Bowen announced in late July that the Federal Government will begin decarbonisation plans for big-emitting sectors. This includes a plan for the Built Environment sector, which is likely to include measures for more climate conscious planning systems. This aligned with PIA’s advocacy position in both PIA and Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) submissions to the Federal Climate Change Authority prior to the announcement. The role of planning in sectoral decarbonisation is also the subject of a new PIA publication: Achieving Net Zero Emissions – An Enabling Role for Planning. Planning in the spotlight The Federal policy announcements described above, coupled with state and territory reforms fuelled by housing and climate crises, have ignited intense discourse on planning policy. Amid heated debates and a crowded policy environment, PIA is acutely aware that planning cannot solve all these issues. The role of planning remains to create places that work for people. PIA will continue to advocate constructively on behalf of planning at the national and state level. Higher interest rates and lower property prices were identified as the main causes of weaker development activity more climate conscious planning systems the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 23
Sponsored article by Queensland State Government With our great lifestyle and wealth of opportunities, it’s no wonder South East Queensland is one of the nation’s fastest growing areas. New modelling shows almost six million people are set to call the region home by 2046. More housing is needed than ever before, and we need a plan that creates the settings to ensure these homes are delivered when and where they need to be. At last year’s Housing Summit, we committed to updating our South East Queensland Regional Plan in response to unprecedented population growth and housing supply shortages. The Palaszczuk Government is delivering on that commitment, with the updated draft ShapingSEQ 2023 released in August for public consultation. This plan paves the way for almost 900,000 new homes by 2046 to accommodate 2.2 million new residents. It puts in place the framework that councils and developers work in to deliver these new homes and protect our world-class lifestyle. By necessity, the plan will provide more direction than ever before to unlock new and different types of housing. Our population isn’t just getting bigger; it’s evolving. Queensland household sizes are getting smaller, and we’ve seen a shift in demographics and lifestyle trends. The number of one person households will increase from 23.4 per cent in 2021 to 40.5 per cent in 2046. Over the same period the number of people aged 65 years or older will increase from 15.9 per cent to 19.5 per cent. We cannot rely on traditional models and new greenfield development as the answer for housing choice and affordability given what we know about people’s preferences. Working with local councils to set new housing diversity targets as part of the final plan will offer Queenslanders more choice in how and where they live. This is also our opportunity to plan for a future with fairer opportunities for people to access the homes they need.A clear target set for social and affordable housing will give government and industry the direction needed to shift the dial on supply. Our focus isn’t just on housing affordability; it’s also on affordable living.The plan aims to ensure the right housing is available, at the right location, so Queenslanders, including our key workers, can access services, transport and jobs near where they live. Infrastructure is a key piece of the puzzle to support growth, which is why the plan is paired with an infrastructure supplement to ensure infrastructure is delivered where and when it’s needed. Growth brings challenges and opportunities, and we have an opportunity to make the very most of those opportunities.The alternative is letting growth happen to us, and risk losing what is great about our communities and lifestyle. The draft ShapingSEQ provides the framework for managing growth in the right way. Growth planned for well means better services, better infrastructure and the right kind of homes where they are needed. It also means thriving communities, more active transport options, protected natural habitats and more open green space for Queenslanders to enjoy. We can’t do this alone. It requires all levels of government, peak bodies, industry and our communities, working together. Landmark plan to shape future of SEQ We cannot rely on traditional models and new greenfield development the plan will provide more direction than ever before 24 the agenda - Spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3
the agenda - spring 2023 - VOL. 63 NO. 3 25
connectivity. planning for Indara is pioneering a new approach to planning for digital connectivity across the nation. An approach that is strategic and collaborative, empowering local Councils and Land Authorities to influence the location and design of digital infrastructure. www.life-enabled.com connectivity. planning for
The next issue of The Agenda, Summer 2023, will carry the theme of ‘Yearbook’. Contributions which relate to this theme, between 600-800 words, are welcome and are due in early November 2023. If you would like to contribute but can’t make this deadline, please email [email protected] After seven years as Editor of this magazine, Matthew Leman will be taking a step back. If you’re interested in becoming the new Editor of The Agenda, email [email protected] To view The Agenda online: 1. Login to your PIA account through the PIA website 2. Click ‘My account’ 3. Click ‘Resources’ under the ‘dashboard’ section (left) 4. Click ‘PIA journals’ and select ‘The Agenda’ Alternatively, type www.planning.org.au/journals into your browser, follow the QR code above, or click the link we sent you in the eNews. Note: The views expressed in The Agenda are not necessarily the views of the Planning Institute of Australia, the editor, the editorial committee or contributors’ employers. The Planning Institute of Australia, the editor and editorial committee do not share information with contributors that is not otherwise publicly available. All statements are believed to be true and accurate, but cannot be guaranteed and no liability will be accepted for any error or omission. Advertisements must comply with relevant legislation. Responsibility for compliance rests with the person or company submitting the advertisement. advertising next issue The Agenda is the journal of the planning profession in Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is published quarterly in March, June, September and December. The journal is supplied free to the PIA’s Queensland and Northern Territory members. Advertising is available at the following rates: • Full page: $550 • Full page (inside back cover): $625 • Full page (outside back cover): $775 • Half page: $325 • Half page: (inside back cover): $375 • Half page: (outside back cover): $475 • A4 insert sheet: $375 (plus $25 for every additional sheet, up to four sheets) A discount of 10% applies to advertising bookings made for four consecutive issues. Dimensions for advertisements are as follows: • Full page: 182mm x 257mm • Half page: 91mm x 128mm Advertisements may be provided in TIFF, PNG, JPEG or PDF format. PDF preferred. For more information about advertising or to make a booking, call Melanie Adam at PIA on (07) 5465 7331 or email [email protected] we’re online are you our new editor?