Planning

The Commonwealth&rsquo;s expansionary budget is the right approach for the times.

The Commonwealth has led the way with support for new home buyers through its &ldquo;First Home-owners Deposit Scheme&rdquo; which effectively under-writes housing loans for first home buyers with only a 5% deposit. &nbsp;However, this, along with record low interest rates and the relaxation of APRA controls has seen a spike in housing demand

The Budget expands this scheme and creates a new category of beneficiaries with the new Family Home Guarantee which will provide single custodial parents with a step up towards home ownership. There&rsquo;s also more flexibility for older Australians (over 60) who sell their house (generally to down-size after children have moved out) allowing them to deposit up to $300,000 per person into Superannuation.

The Budget also includes the expansion of the &ldquo;First Home Super Saver Scheme&rdquo; which increases the funds that can be withdrawn from Super accounts from $30,000 to $50,000. &nbsp;This, on top of HomeBuilder grants all adds to demand for new homes. But without a big boost in housing supply, borrowing from Super just pumps up the price further.

So Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has a conundrum. &nbsp;Stimulate the economy &ndash; but risk new home prices going up and a backlash from those locked out of the housing market. &nbsp;All of the worthy Commonwealth measures announced in the Budget face particular problem in NSW.&nbsp;

The NSW Planning System dropped the ball and slowed housing approvals down to a crawl just before COVID &ndash; then they failed to use COVID-19 as a chance to catch up. &nbsp;Now there is a massive shortage in supply of land sub-divisions and re-zonings for new homes across Greater Sydney. There is a plan for reform of planning in NSW &ndash; but it won&rsquo;t deliver for years to come. The same bold approach which has driven the Commonwealth is urgently needed in NSW.

What that means is all the extra funding for home buyers just pumps up the price of the existing stock of housing, ironically making home ownership less affordable.&nbsp;

<h2>The real issue for NSW is the supply of new housing.</h2>

The Department of Planning&rsquo;s own forecasts predict 150,000 new homes over the next 4 years in Greater Sydney &ndash; but even this bold prediction, unlikely to be achieved given the Government&rsquo;s refusal to take on NIMBY Councils, falls short of meeting the NSW Government&rsquo;s own Housing Strategy &ldquo;Housing 2041&rdquo; targets which call for 50,000 new dwellings (on average) each year from now till 2041.

The big problem for first home buyers and for the Commonwealth Budget is the NSW planning system.

The Commonwealth needs to get tough with NSW and drive planning reform to increase housing supply. &nbsp;While ever we wait for reform in NSW you can expect that new home prices will continue to rise.

The Commonwealth&rsquo;s increased investment public health, the vaccine roll out, mental health and women&rsquo;s support services is all very welcome indeed.

The Commonwealth investment in in city Infrastructure is also supported &ndash; though one short-coming was the absence of funding to support local infrastructure surrounding the new Western Sydney Airport because the success of this precinct will drive the economy of the nation. With a massive levy of 6.5% (on top of all the other fees and charges) to be applied to the development of employment centres around the airport, the feasibility of development of employment land is called into question and NSW risks missing out on the predicted jobs boom without some support from the Commonwealth.

All up, this is a budget for all Australians. It is very welcome and is strongly supported by the Urban Taskforce.

However, all of the worthy Commonwealth measures announced in the Budget face particular problem in NSW

The Commonwealth’s expansionary budget is the right approach for the times: Tom Forrest

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Urban Taskforce CEO today welcomed the announcement made by Hon Alan Tudge MHR, Federal Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, of urgent reforms to planning laws to ensure there is no increase in the timeframes for planning decisions.
The good news is that all Planning Ministers across Australia, as well as the Local Government Association have agreed to a set of principles.
The agreed principles are:  "Decision making in the public interest is a paramount theme in all planning systems and this must continue as a guiding consideration. Transparency for stakeholders about changes to systems and particular decisions. Decisions made within jurisdictions are consistent, where possible. Consideration of the level of public interest in a particular planning change or development proposal. Balancing administrative and legal review rights with the need to address the pandemic emergency and to assist community and economic recovery. All reasonable effort is made to maintain the usual pace of planning approvals recognising, as far as practical, community consultation will continue through new forms of communication recognising social distancing requirements." 
However, in NSW, the Planning system had stagnated well before COVID-19. The emphasis on strategic planning has resulted in Councils focussing on the preparation of Local Strategic Plans (LSPSs) and Local Environment Plans (LEPs). The problem was highlighted by the NSW Productivity Commissioner well before COVID-19. Late in 2019 he found that NSW was the slowest in Australia.
In NSW, just ‘keeping up the pace of planning decision making’ is not good enough. We need to cut red tape and duplication of planning processes and kick-start the economy. The status-quo will not sling-shoot the economy out of recession, it will exacerbate it. “NSW State Government leadership is necessary to prevent an economic crisis.
Urban Taskforce CEO expressed some concern however, that we have heard this all before.
On 27 November, 2019, the Premier announced “MAJOR PLANNING REEFORM TO DRIVE JOBS AND INVERSTMENT IN NSW”.
These reforms were to focus on:
1. Cut red tape, increase transparency, reduce assessment timeframes and make e-planning mandatory for metro councils; 2. Supercharge new hubs across NSW to ensure people can live in communities close to their work; 3. Fix the uncertainty of developer contributions to boost investment; and 4. Preserve our heritage, create beautiful new public places, and promote good design.
Urban Taskforce supports all of these goals, but we urge the NSW Government to take action on Planning Reform. There is no time for ‘a plan for a plan’. 
There are billions of dollars-worth of private sector investment capital which have been stuck in the planning system and therefore not flowed into the NSW economy.
Recent initiatives taken by Minister Stokes and Treasurer Perrottet to fast-track projects through the bottle necks are strongly supported but changing the system to ensure they don’t get stuck in the first place is also critical, particularly now.
Reform in Planning has been on the agenda since the Premier’s announcement in November 2019.
So far, the Government has delivered mandated e-planning; the appointment of the Productivity Commissioner to look at developer contributions for local infrastructure; and some significant improvements to the operation of the IPC. While welcome, these improvements do not address the Premier’s mandate.
The special measures established to deal with COVID-19 are all welcome – but more fundamental reform is urgently needed.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

National action on planning reform welcomed but NSW needs more: Tom Forrest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Good planning needs integrity, and public participation should play a role in that.
But a row over a high-rise development proposed for suburban Brisbane shows what happens when the public feels left out of the planning process.
This highlights the problem with what is termed <a href="https://yoursay.brisbane.qld.gov.au/plan-your-brisbane/faqs#question27643" target="_blank">performance-based planning</a>, which allows some controversial applications to be approved with little or no input from the community.
A plan submitted
Aged-care provider TriCare first lodged its application to develop a new facility in June 2017.
The site it chose was zoned for community facilities and the application was treated under Brisbane City Council’s performance-based planning rules as “<a href="https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/applying-and-post-approval/application-types/code-assessable-development-applications" target="_blank">code assessable development</a>”.
Even though the developer was not required to give notice of the proposal to the local community, people soon got wind of it. They <a href="https://www.change.org/p/brisbane-city-council-oppose-tricare-s-over-development-at-taringa" target="_blank">mobilised</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ProtectTaringa/" target="_blank">strong</a> <a href="http://protecttaringa.com/" target="_blank">opposition</a> to the planned development.
The developer was proposing three buildings of eight, 12 and 16 storeys in a locality characterised by dwellings that are mostly one to three storeys high.
In November 2017, the council rejected the application. The developer appealed.
TriCare then modified the proposal to the council’s satisfaction and the Queensland Planning and Environment Court <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearching/FileDetails.aspx?Location=BRISB&amp;Court=DISTR&amp;Filenumber=4646/17" target="_blank">approved the negotiated deal</a> last month.
The approved design is for three buildings ranging from seven to eight storeys, a very significant scaling down of the original proposal.
Still no public consultation
But once again the local community was not involved in any of the negotiations or the court proceedings. This is because no community appeals are allowed on code assessable development.
Would the developer have got what it originally wanted if the community had not shown its opposition? And why didn’t the court even consider the community’s point of view?
The answer to these questions lies partly in the legal framework for <a href="https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/applying-and-post-approval/application-types/code-assessable-development-applications" target="_blank">code assessable development</a>.
In Queensland, code assessable development is considered a bounded form of assessment, which means it should be considered primarily against a planning scheme’s codes. The original aim was to speed up approvals for development applications broadly consistent with a council’s planning scheme.
These codes are written in a performance-based way. This means developers that only meet the overall outcomes of a code can still get their proposals across the line no matter what the code’s finer details state.
Overall outcomes are very often just that – broad statements of intent open to many different interpretations.
For example, in the TriCare case the applicable overall outcomes required development to be “generally consistent with the character of the area” and to “complement the prevailing, scale, height and bulk of expected development in the locality”.
The council – and the community – believed the initial application did not comply with these terms. The <a href="http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearching/eDoc.aspx?Location=BRISB&amp;Court=DISTR&amp;Filenumber=4646%2f17&amp;edocsno=80715" target="_blank">developer’s appeal</a> argued its proposal was “generally consistent” with the character of the area as there were at least some medium-to-high-rise buildings in the area, including one nine-storey residential building on adjacent land.
Contrary to the council’s view, the developer argued: "The proposed development is of a scale, bulk and height that provides a high level of amenity and transitions sensitively to surrounding uses."
Evidently, code assessment is not quite the bounded and uncontroversial form of decision-making the legislators intended.
Planning with the community
In planning, good decision-making needs integrity. It needs to provide decisions the community knows to expect including, where appropriate, conditions that protect and respond to the needs of the community.
In Queensland, the parameters of performance-based planning have swung too far in favour of flexibility. We need to improve the drafting of performance-based codes.
Requirements to be “generally consistent with the character of the area” serve no useful purpose if the character of an area is hybrid, or has different meanings for the short- and long-term residents of that area.
There is also a huge distinction between code assessable development – where community members have no right of appeal - and impact assessable development – where public notification and third party appeal rights apply.
Yet whether applications are classed as impact or code assessable is a matter left to the discretion of individual councils with very little input from the community.
Further guidance needs to be given to better match assessment categories with community concerns.
Flexibility and discretion have a role to play in good planning. But if integrity, honesty and public trust are also goals then transparency and public accountability should be increased.
The value of public participation – both in its contribution to better design and for keeping the system accountable and honest – needs to be genuinely recognised and valued.
Not all development applications may warrant public appeal rights but a place at the table for the community somewhere along the line is surely warranted.
The Taringa development was initially assessed under legislation that has been superseded. But, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-queensland-planning-law-puts-transparency-and-accountability-at-risk-93121" target="_blank">I warned last year</a>, Queensland’s new Planning Act has done little to nothing to resolve the fundamental concerns this case raises.
The divisive story of the aged-care development in Taringa serves as a timely warning to other states looking to shift to a performance-based planning model.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124175/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Philippa England, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-your-backyard-why-people-need-a-say-on-planning-that-affects-their-local-community-124175" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why people need a say on planning that affects their local community: Philippa England

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The Independent Planning Commission’s rejection of the Ritz Carlton hotel development in Pyrmont represents a comprehensive failure to deliver planning decisions which serve the broad public interest of the people of NSW.
“After the State Government actively encouraged this development for over four years, the IPC decision to reject this hotel development is a blow to tourism, a blow to jobs and a blow to the sensible development of our city”, Mr Forrest said.
“The IPC rejected submissions that this proposal was a logical extension of Darling Harbour down the peninsular. The IPC has clearly not read any of the GSC’s planning documents. The ICC precinct is suffering from the sparsity of hotel availability and this proposal was part of the solution.
The IPC decision rejects the proposal because (in part), it says, it is not consistent with the Strategic Planning in the area.
“This is simply wrong. The GSC’s district Plan for Eastern Sydney published in its final form in March 2018 sets the strategic framework. It states on page 46:
‘The District’s many great places also include local neighbourhoods in leafy suburbs like Bellevue Hill and Strathfield, inner-city, mixed-use places around Potts Point and Surry Hills, and the city high-rise areas of Pyrmont and the Sydney CBD. Each offers its own identity and sense of place where social cohesion and belonging is fostered.’
“The District Plan establishes the Strategic merit for high rise development in this location. The IPC seems to be rejecting the Greater Sydney Commission’s vision for an extension of the city’s CBD into Pyrmont. This calls into question the very future of the IPC.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars of development investment and tourism revenue will be lost to the city of Sydney as a result of this decision. Worse, the future of our city is being held to ransom, and the IPC has simply given up and folded to a handful of local activists.
“The decision represents a complete lack of balance. The decision over emphasises local community concerns. Those concerns were driven by selfish NIMBY activists. The failure of the IPC to reject these concerns and to find a pathway forward after years of State Government encouragement for the development of this project is a disgrace.
“The Planning Department’s Report was also very disappointing, and this must be fed into to the Productivity Commission’s review of both the role of the IPC as well as their review into Planning in NSW.
“Confidence in the NSW economy is slipping, and the planning system is the bottleneck. This decision must be a catalyst for serious review and change.
“By putting the interests of NIMBYs before the financial future of our State the IPC has behaved like Hunters Hill Council. The IPC has failed the test of leadership as has let the community of Sydney down. The decision and its reasoning are simply not worthy of the leading non-judicial planning authority in the State”, Mr Forrest said.
TOM FORREST is the Chief Executive Officer of Urban Taskforce Australia
</body></html>

IPC rejection of the Ritz Carlton hotel for Pyrmont sells Sydney short: Tom Forrest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
Imagine a community of 200,000. Convivial, walkable, six times the density of Manhattan but with a smaller ecological footprint. It provides low-cost services and affordable housing mixed with productive uses such as recycling, farming and trading. It’s a city within a city.
But the streets aren’t wide enough to allow cars. The houses seem makeshift and the drains need work. The adaptations make it look like a place under perpetual construction.
In fact, the landlords and local leaders have incrementally built their houses and urban amenities over the last 40 years. They have self-organised to provide services such as gas, electricity and water. Non-government organisations (NGOs) have often provided extensive support to help with this process.
The only catch is this community has been built on unused public land. Now the residents face threats of resettlement to allow for “development” projects planned by the state. After spending six months in such a place, I can attest to their simultaneous desire to live their lives and the fear of uprooting that underlies their daily life.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285576/original/file-20190724-110158-11gasn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Sahajul, a local elder, recollects the struggles he faced to kick-start Karail as a place. 
Mohammed Jilani/Open Studio, Author provided
The story of a billion people
The place is Karail, the largest informal settlement in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhaka" target="_blank">Dhaka</a>, but the story is not particular to there. A billion people live in such places around the world. That number is slated to reach <a href="https://unhabitat.org/books/world-cities-report/" target="_blank">3 billion people in the next 30 years</a>.
This means informal settlements are one of the major ways developing cities are being produced. Conventional planning approaches such as slum clearance, cookie-cutter high-rises, peripheral resettlement and back-to-village programs have often failed to manage them.
UN-Habitat, the body with global responsibility for issues of urban growth, advocates city-wide <a href="https://www.citiesalliance.org/about-slum-upgrading#Why_not_tear_down" target="_blank">slum upgrading</a> and integration with metropolitan plans. Such programs are explicitly “<a href="http://www.monppab.org/content/libraryfiles/160.pdf" target="_blank">participatory</a>” and inclusive. Specifically, UN-Habitat <a href="https://unhabitat.org/quick-guide-for-participatory-city-wide-slum-upgrading-city-wide-slum-upgrading-for-sustainable-urbanization/" target="_blank">recommends</a> member states “recognise the rights and contributions of slum dwellers and change the view that they are illegal”.
However, these recommendations are non-binding. It is up to the state and NGOs to implement policies on the ground. While funding agencies and local civic bodies have important roles too, they are ineffective in formulating the upgrading programs by themselves.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285568/original/file-20190724-110187-1f79zyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285568/original/file-20190724-110187-1f79zyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
An overhead view of Karail. 
Google Earth, Author provided
What’s the plan for Karail?
In Karail’s case, the land belongs to the Ministry of Science and Information &amp; Communication Technology (MoSICT). It plans to establish a <a href="https://bhtpa.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/bhtpa.portal.gov.bd/page/fd2c28e6_99ab_43d4_8262_ff8d87165be7/Draft%20Feasibility%20Study%20Report-%20Mohakhali.pdf" target="_blank">software technology park</a> to replace the settlement. In 2014, several NGOs providing pro bono legal aid filed petitions in court challenging the authority to carry out evictions on such a massive scale. The final verdict is still pending, but the word on the streets in Karail is that the wheels are in motion to make the project happen by any means.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285624/original/file-20190724-110175-kuy1wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285624/original/file-20190724-110175-kuy1wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The existing settlement and proposed development plan. 
Tanzil Shafique and BHTPA, Author provided
If the project proceeds, the demolitions will begin soon. The resettlement plan for the project proposes six options, none of which are slum upgrading.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285573/original/file-20190724-110162-3hzn1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285573/original/file-20190724-110162-3hzn1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Kurail is an established community that is home to at least 40,000 families. 
Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
In the best-case scenario, about 6,000 economy flats (roughly 25 square metres) will be built on site. Remember, at least 40,000 families live in Karail. The other options – including off-site resettlement or cash compensation – are far worse.
The draft plan shows no understanding of the site as an existing city, nor are there any attempts to integrate slum upgrading into the project, as UN-Habitat recommends. Note that the objective of the project is “to establish knowledge-based industries contributing to the national economy and helping achieve the goals of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_2021" target="_blank">Vision 2021: Digital Bangladesh</a>”. The project is predicted to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.theindependentbd.com/printversion/details/133535" target="_blank">create 30,000 jobs</a>.
Such is the cruel irony of “development”. For an estimated investment of <a href="https://bhtpa.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/bhtpa.portal.gov.bd/page/fd2c28e6_99ab_43d4_8262_ff8d87165be7/Draft%20Feasibility%20Study%20Report-%20Mohakhali.pdf" target="_blank">AU$300 million</a>, the project will generate <a href="http://www.theindependentbd.com/arcprint/details/113909/2017-09-14" target="_blank">30,000 future jobs</a>, replacing the estimated <a href="https://torturedocumentationproject.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/poverty-and-violence-in-korail-slum-in-dhaka.pdf" target="_blank">116,000 jobs that Karail supports</a>. The project will displace 40,000 families from their current affordable housing and build high-rise apartments to house only 6,000.
In a city already on the <a href="https://www.thedailystar.net/city/dhaka-traffic-jam-congestion-eats-32-million-working-hours-everyday-world-bank-1435630" target="_blank">verge of collapse with traffic congestion</a>, the project is set to attract more traffic to the centre. Vehicle-based infrastructure will replace the non-motorised walkable neighbourhood of Karail. The cost of losing the accumulated social capital of the people of Karail only makes it worse.
‘Development’ that fails people
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285575/original/file-20190724-110166-1u7jv7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285575/original/file-20190724-110166-1u7jv7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The housing in Bhashantek Rehabilitation Project exemplifies how not to resettle a community. 
Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
Such “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9564" target="_blank">development</a>” in pursuit of a techno-ideological spectacle, without a sense of equitable well-being, is empty and is particularly threatening to informal settlements due to land value. Even when the state operates with the best of intentions and provides off-site resettlement, it has proven to be disastrous in Bangladesh, as exemplified by the <a href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080519.pdf" target="_blank">Bhashantek Rehabilitation Project</a>.
As Karail’s case shows, conventional “development” and policymaking do not know how to deal with such settlements. Planning is conducted with <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2015.1071870" target="_blank">half a mind</a> in the absence of empathy. “Inclusive cities” and “sustainable development” become empty motherhood slogans.
New practices can only emerge when we begin to learn how the other half lives and become allies in their struggle. Will Karail survive the onslaught of development? Well, it has survived decades of adversity so far and there is never any scarcity of hope.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120600/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285570/original/file-20190724-110162-1siaz6o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Karail is a place of learning to hope. 
Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
Tanzil Shafique, PhD Researcher in Urban Design, University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-sort-of-development-has-no-place-for-a-billion-slum-dwellers-120600" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

What sort of ‘development’ has no place for a billion slum dwellers?

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
EXPERT OBSERVER
The long delay of two and a half years by the NSW Government in processing the Central Sydney Planning Strategy does not send a good signal about the state’s planning system.
The City of Sydney Council, after waiting almost three years for the NSW Department of Planning to put the Central Sydney Planning Strategy on exhibition, is now organising its own exhibition. There is something wrong with our planning system ifthe key council for the Sydney CBD and the state government’s planning department are unable to agree on plans for the city since July 2016.
The City of Sydney plan included some positive elements in relation to taller buildings in the city, but the plan was negative in relation to encouraging a mixture of uses in the city that wouldi nclude residential towers.
The City Council as well as putting their plan on exhibition have also released a Draft Guideline for Site Specific Planning Proposals where sites can get additional height and floor space. The sites that get this uplift cannot contain residential or serviced apartment floor space and sites are encourage to be amalgamated. So only employment generating buildings can access the additional floor space. Clearly the City is trying to swing the pendulum away from residential development towards commercial development but most world cities are encouraging a mixture of uses so that they become active over 24 hours and 7 days a week.”
The Urban Taskforce supports a mixed-use approach to urban areas as many younger people are preferring an urban cosmopolitan life style where they live close to work. The same work / liveapproach should occur across all of Sydney’s urban areas and town centres. Major international cities are building mixed use precincts like Hudson Yards in New York and Battersea Power Station renewal in London. The success of projects like Barangaroo which mixes residential and commercial uses demonstrates that Sydney also wants this type of development.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The long delay of two and a half years by the NSW Government in processing the Central Sydney Planning Strategy does not send a good signal about the state’s planning system says the UrbanTaskforce.
The City of Sydney Council, after waiting almost three years for the NSW Department of Planning to put the Central Sydney Planning Strategy on exhibition, is now organising its own exhibition.” Says Urban Taskforce CEO Chris Johnson “There is something wrong with our planning system if the key council for the Sydney CBD and the state government’s planning department are unable to agree on plans for the city since July 2016.
The City of Sydney plan included some positive elements in relation to taller buildings in the city, but the plan was negative in relation to encouraging a mixture of uses in the city that would include residential towers.
The City Council as well as putting their plan on exhibition have also released a Draft Guideline for Site Specific Planning Proposals where sites can get additional height and floor space. The sites that get this uplift cannot contain residential or serviced apartment floor space and sites are encourage to be amalgamated. So only employment generating buildings can access the additional floor space. Clearly the City is trying to swing the pendulum away from residential development towards commercial development but most world cities are encouraging a mixture of uses so that they become active over 24 hours and 7 days a week.
The Urban Taskforce supports a mixed-use approach to urban areas as many younger people are preferring an urban cosmopolitan life style where they live close to work. The same work / live approach should occur across all of Sydney’s urban areas and town centres. Major international cities are building mixed use precincts like Hudson Yards in New York and Battersea Power Station renewal in London. The success of projects like Barangaroo which mixes residential and commercial uses demonstrates that Sydney also wants this type of development.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

City of Sydney planning strategy delay by Government is bad: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
2018 has been a huge year for the site. We rebranded from Urban.com.au to Urban.com.au and expanded our presence nationally. With this came a host of new features on the site, including (but not limited to) and the recent roll out of a Construction Update feature on project pages which allows users to upload construction photos.

2018 was also big year on the planning and development front and always Urban.com.au tried to keep you, our readers up to date and informed. The big story items on Urban.com.au were (in no particular order):

<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/southbank-by-beulah-designs-revealed-at-future-cities-symposium">Southbank by Beulah Symposium</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/top-10-future-tallest-buildings-in-australia">Australia's future top 10 tallest skyscrapers</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/southbank-by-beulah-the-winning-design-for-australias-tallest-tower-revealed">The Green Spine</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/victorian-government-unveils-suburban-rail-loop-election-proposal">Suburban Rail Loop</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/fishermans-bend-framework-and-planning-controls-finalised">Fishermans Bend Framework and Planning Controls</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/consortium-proposes-market-led-super-train-for-melbourne-airport-rail-link">Melbourne AirRail market-led proposal</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/nightingales-magnificent-seven-on-show-for-the-first-time">Nightingale Village</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/cbus-property-submits-planning-application-for-its-landmark-435-bourke-street-site">Cbus Property submits plans for $1bn tower at 435 Bourke Street</a></li>
</ul>
On behalf of the team here at Urban.com.au we would like to wish you all a safe and relaxing holiday period and thank you for your continued support throughout the year. We look forward to another massive year in 2019 and hope you can join us for the ride.

- The Editorial Team
</body></html>

Urban Editorial

Urban.com.au Year in Review 2018

<html><body>
In this week's podcast, recorded at Melbourne Town Hall, I chat with Councillor Nicholas Reece who is also the chair of the City of Melbourne's Planning Portfolio. We discuss the City of Melbourne's Melbourne Design Guide for the Central City, why they are necessary to ensuring a walkable city and diverse streetscapes that add to Melbourne's design credentials and heritage fabric.

The impact of amendment C270 on the Central City is also touched on and the possibility of revisiting some of the aspects including the possibility of transferring development rights from one site to another.

This will be the final podcast for 2018. We look forward to continuing to provide engaging podcasts with key figures within the industry in 2019.

<iframe allow="autoplay" frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/545985309&amp;color=%23ff5500&amp;auto_play=true&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;show_teaser=true" width="100%"></iframe>

*Please note the following correction, it's the former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_Building,_Melbourne">APA Building</a> that Cr Reece is referring to and not the ANA Building.

**The podcast was recorded on Monday 10th December at 4:30pm, prior to the <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/pages/future-melbourne-committee-10-december-2018.aspx">Future Melbourne Committee meeting</a>. The Future Melbourne Committee unanimously supported the motion to lodge a planning application to the Minister for Planning for the redevelopment of Council House 1 and the greater precinct.
</body></html>

Laurence Dragomir

Weekly Podcast - Episode 44: Cr Nicholas Reece talks Planning within the City of Melbourne

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A commonly held view is that changing planning rules could significantly increase housing supply and hence make housing more affordable. Recent commentary, <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-make-housing-more-affordable-this-is-what-state-governments-need-to-do-105050" target="_blank">including here</a>, repeats this. It’s a view that glosses over the special features of land, which allow property developers to control housing supply to a significant extent.
To understand what’s going on, we need to look at why land makes the housing market different from any other.
Economic theory and the special features of land
<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oACQM7HMDDoC&amp;pg=PA1658&amp;lpg=PA1658&amp;dq=land+is+not+a+homogeneous+product&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7zrLO8-FDl&amp;sig=ymeg8EJNeO5A2_15zvWF3hir6gQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_n4CVbD8HIjr8AXjxgI&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=land%20is%20not%20a%20homogeneous%20product&amp;f=false" target="_blank">Land has special features</a> that other goods don’t usually have. The most fundamental of these features is fixed location.
What’s more, land does not physically degrade over time. As a result, it doesn’t have to be sold but instead can be withheld from sale without financial cost.
These features are important when considering the application of standard supply-demand theory to housing markets.
Economic theory says increasing the supply of a good will lower the price for a given level of demand. Like a lot of economic theory, this is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition" target="_blank">based on simplifying assumptions</a>. The following assumptions are particularly relevant when considering land:
<ul>
<li>the good is homogeneous</li>
<li>all market participants have full information about the market</li>
<li>no participant has an undue influence on the market</li>
<li>there are no barriers for new market participants.</li>
</ul>
However, we know that land is not homogeneous. Location is particularly important.
And property developers generally have much more knowledge of the market than individual buyers, potentially giving developers undue influence.
The capacity of developers to withhold land from sale and the fact that new developers wanting to enter the market face significant barriers – importantly the financial capacity to hold back land when demand and sales are reduced – are also at odds with the assumptions of supply-demand theory.
UK economist <a href="http://evonomics.com/josh-ryan-collins-land-economic-theory/" target="_blank">Josh Ryan-Collins notes</a> that current economic theory does not differentiate between land and capital (such as machinery). This may well be one of the main reasons the special features of land are often overlooked in discussions about housing supply.
Governments don’t control housing supply
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2013/09/03/saul-eslake-50-years-of-housing-failure/" target="_blank">In the past, governments developed more housing directly</a>, but over the past 20-30 years the role of government has been mainly to enable private developers to provide housing.
Governments may release enough land for the expected population, but <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/from-big-land-banks-little-things-grow-20120601-1znb4" target="_blank">private developers decide</a> how much housing is <a href="http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament%5Ccommit.nsf/%28Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID%29/F4088CA4544382084825793D00061BD2/%24file/30105662.pdf" target="_blank">offered for sale</a> at any time. It’s no secret that, for larger residential estates in particular, <a href="https://www.lmw.com.au/media/1369/gold-coast-residential-land-review-october-2016.pdf" target="_blank">demand dictates the rate at which lots are released</a> to market. This is a logical business strategy, but much of the commentary on housing supply fails to acknowledge this.
In the Gold Coast region, for example, where a relatively small number of larger estates provide most of the new residential land, the <a href="https://statistics.qgso.qld.gov.au/profiles/rlda/pdf/DZ4A2J5N7IOXGDVO39YD9X7VBGEUPH6YKQM08T3EY6W1HMYQUQYMKFWPFI5S0CLS8BXP7Z22FVERJ5L56CGAW3NZ9RS96P67HUQPL1S9LDE3LIVLVM2XG9SI2QYEO89X/rlda-profiles#view=fit&amp;pagemode=bookmarks" target="_blank">median price of vacant residential land has remained remarkably stable</a> since the GFC despite large fluctuations in the number of sales. This suggests something other than the standard supply-demand theory is operating.
As noted above, developers of new estates in outer areas can “drip-feed” the market to keep prices up.
For new apartments in established suburbs, off-the-plan sales allow developers to test the market before building. If interest in the apartments at prices set by the developer is insufficient, the project will not go ahead. Of course, there can still be an <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/news/offtheplan-apartments-face-price-falls-as-market-supply-exceeds-demand/" target="_blank">oversupply of apartments</a> if future demand is overestimated.
Planning rule changes won’t make much difference to supply
Markets for residential land are distorted by three main factors:
<ul>
<li>location is very important</li>
<li>land is a not a homogeneous good</li>
<li>developers can influence supply.</li>
</ul>
This means that changing planning rules is unlikely to make much difference to housing supply or affordability. Housing supply can’t readily be increased without direct government construction. Even then developers will be likely to respond by restricting overall housing supply if they can.
With supply restricted, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/first-home-ownership/submissions/sub199/sub199.pdf" target="_blank">price is significantly influenced by demand factors</a>. These include finance interest rates, tax concessions and buyers’ expectations of future capital gains.
Therefore, policy that focuses on <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-on-unearned-gains-is-the-missing-piece-of-the-affordable-housing-puzzle-77010" target="_blank">managing demand factors</a> offers much more hope of improving housing affordability than do changes to planning rules.
Brian Feeney, Adjunct Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/land-makes-the-housing-market-different-so-changing-planning-rules-wont-fix-affordability-107182" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Land makes the housing market different, so changing planning rules won’t fix affordability

<html><body>
Moreland City Council has launched the Moreland Good Design Sessions, a series of workshops aimed at members of Victoria’s leading design and construction firms. Professionals be invited to assess the recently released new draft Good Design Advice Sheets to determine how the quality of medium density housing can be improved.

The launch is part of Moreland City Council’s Medium Density Review, which was identified as a key priority in the Moreland Council Plan 2017-21, with the aim of enhancing liveability, affordability and sustainability in Moreland by guiding growth and excellence in urban design and development.

According to Moreland City Council, medium-density housing accommodates 35% of Moreland’s population, and that approximately one in six Moreland families with children were living in medium-density dwellings in 2006 and by 2016 this had increased to one in four families.

Moreland City Council surveyed more than 400 medium-density households in 2017, which found that most people living in medium density housing chose to do so due to location and price. Following the survey, Council undertook a detailed case study analysis of nearly 1,000 dwellings in early 2018.

Moreland's appeal as a desirable municipality in which to live was reflected in it securing fourth place in Urban.com.au's list of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/urbans-top-5-for-october-most-viewed-local-government-areas">Top 5 most viewed LGA's</a> for the month of October.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="420px" src="https://www.urban.com.au/developments?field_local_government_area_name=Moreland%20%28City%29&amp;embeddable=map" width="100%"></iframe>

<blockquote>
Council assesses more than 400 applications each year for medium density developments, which is almost a third of all planning applications. Medium-density housing is not a temporary situation for young families. It can provide a genuine alternative to the traditional family home.

The survey also brought to light issues around ecologically sustainable design, open space, site layout, landscaping, internal amenity and accessibility. Planning permit decision-making often involves balancing various aspects 
of the design.

Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme (ResCode) includes standards that are discretionary, which means that where a particular aspect of the design may not comply with the planning scheme standard, on balance an overall acceptable outcome can still be achieved.

One of the weakness of ResCode compared with other best practice medium density guidelines is an absence of images and illustrations. Some applications may meet the numerical standards of ResCode but with insufficient regard to the context or design detail.

-  Sue Vujcevic, Acting Director Planning and Economic Development 
</blockquote>

Moreland City Council recently developed a series of draft <a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/0---all.pdf">Good Design Advice Sheets </a>to illustrate how particular objectives of the Moreland Planning Scheme can be applied to deliver better quality design for buildings. These include:

<ol>
<li><a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/1---site-layout.pdf">Site Layout</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/2---exterior-appearance.pdf">Exterior Appearance</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/3---communal-access-areas.pdf">Communal Access Areas</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/4---amenity.pdf">Amenity</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/images/map-image/5---internal-layout.pdf">Internal Layout</a></li>
</ol>
Moreland’s Good Design Sessions are happening as follows, with each session tailored to its audience:

<ul>
<li>Monday 26 November – 12pm Launch and Exhibition until 5pm at the Coburg Concert Hall 90 Bell St, Coburg</li>
	<li>Monday 3 December – 7:30am–11:30am at the Australian Institute of Architects 41XL2 – 41 Exhibition Street, Melbourne</li>
	<li>Tuesday 4 December – 11am-3pm at the Master Builders Association of Victoria 332 Albert Street, East Melbourne</li>
</ul>
To find out more about Moreland’s Good Design Sessions, the Draft Good Design Advice Sheets and the Medium Density Review, <a href="https://moreland.vic.gov.au/good-design">click here</a>.
</body></html>

Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News