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also includes the expansion of the &ldquo;First Home Super Saver Scheme&rdquo; which increases the funds that can be withdrawn from Super accounts from $30,000 to $50,000.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>
A recent announcement from planning minister John Day has noted that new building standards are going to be put on homes being built in bushfire areas, under new construction standards.
The Building Code of Australia and the Australian Standards AS3959 will identify mandatory provisions for properties being built in bushfire-prone areas under new planning schemes across Western Australia.
The new guidelines are open for public comment, however the plan is for the standards to apply from May 2015, and will apply to all properties in areas mapped by the government as bushfire-prone or within 100 metres of one hectare or more of bushland.
“If land intended for development is located on a bushfire map or close to a large area of bushland a bushfire hazard assessment will be required,” Day announced.
“The assessment will identify the bushfire risk level and the Australian Standards to be applied when the new home is constructed.  These standards are used in many jurisdictions across Australia and include requirements such as the placement of ember screens over evaporative air-conditioner units, window screens and appropriate construction methods."
The measures look to reduce the severity of the effect of a fire on a home.
Part of this will be the introduction of uniform state-wide maps, explained Emergency Services Minister Joe Francies, led by the Fire and Emergency Services commissioner, based on the Keelty Report into the Perth Hills bushfires.
These will be available to the public.
The WA Planning Commission, at the same time, released the State Planning Policy and Planning Guidelines on Bushfire Risk Management. These are all available for public comment, and look to provide both government and developers guidance when planning developments in these areas.
This may cause an extra hoop for developers to jump through, with the current draft suggesting that some developers will be required to supply a Bushfire Management Plan prepared by a fire consultant, jointly endorsed by a local government and authority responsible for emergency services.
It also notes that: "Any planning proposal or development application that will result in the introduction, or intensification, of development in an area that has an extreme bushfire hazard level and/or requires construction standards of BAL-40 or BAL-FZ shall only be supported if it is unavoidable development."
New developments will be required to provide the highest achievable protection, and where earlier strategic planning has not been seen to address bushfire risk, "assessing greenfield or infill development will require the exercising of statutory planning discretions."
It notes that this may include situations where new risks are identified, requiring planning measures to be taken where they have previously been unexpected.
Subdivisions may also be implicated.
The public consultation period on the State Planning Policy closes on 4 July, while the guidelines' commenting period closes on 1 August.
</body></html>

jduke-EHk3XBmHkn

New construction requirements coming for houses in WA bushfire areas

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
As a general rule, one place you really don’t want to find yourself is in-between a Melburnian and a piece of real estate.
But one group of long-term city residents has been getting in the way of developers and planners for a very long time now. This is even more impressive when you consider these residents have been dead for well over a century.
The Queen Victoria Market’s carpark <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/past-versus-present-20140507-37wdj" target="_blank">sits atop the city’s original cemetery</a>, founded in the 1830s. Despite exhumations in the 1920s there are still thousands of bodies buried there, some at depth, others barely a foot beneath the surface.
Surveyor Robert Hoddle’s understandable lack of foresight in siting the cemetery so close to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Grid" target="_blank">the CBD grid that bears his name</a> has meant that the use of this land has long been a sensitive and difficult matter. Works over the years have had to negotiate the competing needs of the market (in more sense than one) and the non-economic needs of human remembrance, trying to combine mercantile and sacred space in a delicate balancing act.
Recently, City of Melbourne <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/queenvictoriamarket" target="_blank">has proposed</a> turning most of the existing carpark into a park as a sign of respect for those buried there – a far cry from the attitude of the 1930s, when a steam shovel was used to tear through the old cemetery to build the Franklin Street stores.
And yet questions have still been raised about whether the new plans show sufficient forbearance. The proposed extension of Franklin Street and commercial development at the southern end of the market precinct would potentially sit atop burial sites.
This clash between the call of the future and the depth of the past poses important questions for us here in the present: should the dead impede the activities of the living in this way? What, if anything, do we owe the dead?
It’s too easy to say “nothing”, that the dead simply don’t exist any more and any responsibilities we have regarding the dead are actually duties to the living. Even the unsentimental Aristotle thought it “<a href="https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0054:book=1:chapter=11" target="_blank">heartless</a>” to claim the dead couldn’t be harmed by events after their death, such as the fortunes of their descendants.
There is a real question as to how we can harm or benefit a person who no longer exists, and philosophers have tried to answer this question <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/death/index" target="_blank">in a number of ways</a>. An influential answer, first <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2214297" target="_blank">offered by Thomas Nagel</a>, is that just as we can harm someone at a great spatial distance, say by betraying them, we can also harm them at a temporal distance as well.
So when, for instance, Colin Campbell Ross <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Campbell_Ross" target="_blank">was pardoned</a> for Melbourne’s <a href="https://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM00679b.htm" target="_blank">Gun Alley Murder</a>, 86 years after he was wrongfully convicted and hanged, this was justice for Ross, not for the living.
I’ve <a href="https://www.academia.edu/197785/Duties_to_the_Dead_Earnest_Imagination_and_Remembrance" target="_blank">argued previously</a> that the dead persist phenomenally in our recollection – not as conscious selves, but nonetheless as the objects of loving attention they were for us while they lived – and that this gives us a responsibility to maintain that memory.
Sartre said the dead are “prey” to the living, but they are also our dependants: without our maintenance they slip away into oblivion, into what Goethe called the “second death” of being forgotten.
Yet those buried beneath the Queen Vic are beyond memory. There are no direct personal bonds between the living and the dead in this case, no personal promises left to honour or break. Whatever connections of blood or allegiance we might have to these people are lost in their anonymity. Each is, for us, simply a distinct token of humanity, and whatever we owe them, we owe them simply as human beings.
Kierkegaard declared that remembering the dead was the purest act of love, because the dead can neither repay us for our trouble nor force us to remember them. This work of love is harder when the dead are beyond human memory, stripped of their identity and decomposed into a body that can only be reconstructed, not recognised, and described only through general categories – age, height, sex.
But the sense remains that even these remains are those of distinctive persons, objects of someone’s loving regard even if they remain unknowable to us.
The inscription “Known Unto God” on the gravestones of unknown soldiers picks out something like this: to us these are perhaps just bones, but someone – God, at least, for the epitaph-writers of the Great War – knew this person in their distinctive fullness. They lived. And that they lived deserves to be respected.
The reason we’re horrified by the thought of a steam shovel tearing up the old cemetery is not that we’re superstitious or have taken metaphors about the “resting place” of the dead too literally. It’s that the dead continue to demand a respect that extends to how we treat their remains, however far removed these might be from the full, living person they once were.
The dead, in a way, have a right to be awkward. They should be an obstruction, something the living need to work around, because in doing so we refuse to quarantine them from the realm of what is.
The rights of those buried beneath the market carpark are of course no more absolute than those of any other Melburnians. It would be silly to deny that the living have a far greater claim on us, and the demands of the dead are easily outweighed by other considerations. But that doesn’t mean the dead have no claim on us at all.
The continued sensitive management of this site isn’t simply a piece of good urban planning or canny politics. It’s a work of love.
Patrick Stokes is lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/26462/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.3em;">.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Building on cemeteries: Should the dead roll over to make room for real estate?

<html><body>
Permanent height restrictions have been introduced for buildings in areas to the west and southwest of Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance.
After introducing interim and discretionary controls for the area, the Victorian government has now permanently installed mandatory planning controls for the South Melbourne precinct.
Maximum heights for buildings will depend on their location, but will reportedly range from six to about 17 storeys, according to the Herald Sun.
The new restrictions introduced by Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy were developed in consultation with the Shrine Trustees and the cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington.
 “The Shrine of Remembrance is an incredibly important memorial to the servicemen and women who gave their lives for all of us, and is a special place for all Australians, young and old,” said Guy.
“The Shrine itself has a special location in Melbourne and it is vital to preserve the spectacular and uninterrupted views you get as you look up from Swanston Street or walk through the forecourt.”
One of Guy’s first acts in his role as Planning Minister was an intervention blocking the development of a proposed 88 metre tower on Albert Road.
“These new controls recognise and respect the significance of one of Australia’s most recognisable and lost loved structures and will protect its integrity from the possible impact of external development,” said Guy.
“By mandating limits on the height and location of nearby buildings, we are ensuring that the view and backdrop of the Shrine is preserved forever.”
Shrine Trustees chief executive Denis Baguley has welcomed the new restrictions, announced in time for Anzac Day.
“These new controls recognise and respect the significance of one of Australia’s most recognisable and most loved structures, and will protect its integrity from the possible impact of external development.”
Picture courtesy of Wikipedia/Creative Commons.
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

The Shrine of Remembrance to be permanently protected under new planning controls

<html><body>
The Victorian Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has made a move to ensure that private land owners on beaches covered by Public Conservation and Resource zones will only be able to go ahead with the agreement of the state government.
Before this, there was apparently a loophole allowing private land owners the ability to build permanent structures ‘as of right’. This could be anything from a deck, verandah or shade structure to a fence, sign or significant outdoor furniture.
Now, however, these zones will be kept from private development under amendment VC115.
“The Victorian Coalition government will not allow public accessed beaches to be built  on, where the land is technically held in private ownership,” Guy said in a recent statement.
They are currently further looking at legislative options regarding clarifying title boundaries around Port Phillip Bay.
No use or development will be able to go ahead on the land without a planning permit from now on. To obtain this, an owner must put in an application, which will then look to seek consent from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. A local planning authority will assess the applications. This is likely to be the local council for many.
“With this change, any permit application to use or develop land within this zone will require consent. This is wide-ranging and includes fences, signs, outdoor furniture, shade sails, flag-poles, sheds, pergolas, verandahs and decks. Until today’s reforms, building these structures on private land in this zone did not require a planning permit.”
Guy expressed his belief that this was an appropriate response, with the government currently working on the process of defining boundaries in areas with a high water mark.
“This change to the PCR zone will ensure proper management of beaches. It will prevent inappropriate development and construction from occurring. Beaches will remain accessible for everyone in this state – as they should be.”
</body></html>

Private land owners near Victoria’s beaches to lose ability to develop 'as of right'

<html><body>
Planning Minister Matthew Guy has announced that Victoria’s Hanging Rock has been ‘saved’ from commercial development, with $1 million of government funding to provide ongoing planning protection.
The funding will be provided for ongoing maintenance of public facilities for the next four years, and will stop commercial development at the Eastern Paddock, which was to include a hotel and conference centre.
“This funding over the next four years will ensure the future of this vital community asset,” Guy said.
“More people will be able to enjoy the natural beauty of Hanging Rock with proper funding now guaranteed,” he said.
Alternatives to commercial development to manage Hanging Rock will be explored between the Victorian government and the Macedon Ranges Shire Council, after Guy visited local representatives Donna Petrovich and Amanda Millar.
Millar, who is Member for Northern Victoria Region, thanked Guy for delivering this outcome, as did Liberal candidate for Macedon, Petrovich.
Planning protections will be strengthened at the site to avoid inappropriate development in the long term, however they noted that any changes would not affect current uses of the site for horse racing and concerts.
The site, which had been committed to commercial and wind farm developments “up to 160 metres tall throughout the Macedon Ranges… taller than Hanging Rock itself,” according to Guy, saw huge opposition to commercial development through the Hanging Rock Action Group.
Upgrades to current facilities have not been opposed.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia.
</body></html>

Hanging Rock “saved” from commercial development

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
During Queensland’s preparations for Severe Tropical Cyclone Ita earlier this year, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3983077.htm">Queensland Premier Campbell Newman</a> advised residents who lived in older houses (those built before 1985) to evacuate their homes as they were not likely to stand up to the storm’s destructive winds.
In the event, the damage was <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-ita-worsthit-areas-could-go-weeks-without-power-20140414-36m7d" target="_blank">largely to the electricity network</a>, while Cooktown, very close to the path of the storm, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cooktown-cleans-up-after-cyclone-ita-20140412-36jzz" target="_blank">suffered less destruction than had been feared</a>.
But the episode still begs the question: what was so special about 1985?
That was the year that building regulations changed to require new houses in cyclone-prone areas to be able to withstand higher winds. But how were these regulations determined, what do they mean for modern homes, and why do regulators always seem to wait until after a severe storm before updating the codes?
Updating the regulations
Building codes are drawn up by the <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/" target="_blank">Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB)</a>, which cites its mission as addressing “issues of safety and health, amenity and sustainability”.
Its job is to set minimum standards for the design, construction and performance of buildings to “withstand extreme climate related natural hazard events”. It is then up to each state and territory to adopt the recommended standards.
After natural disasters, the ABCB examines the nature of building damage to decide whether the regulations provide enough protection. During <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/tracy.shtml" target="_blank">Cyclone Tracy</a> in 1974, 70% of Darwin’s houses suffered severe damage (90% in some areas), causing 65 deaths and damage worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It was obvious that existing building standards were not protecting the community.
As a result, the regulations were changed in the 1980s to improve the construction processes that attach the roof to the rest of the house, making homes more resistant to severe wind damage.
Analysis after cyclones <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/vance.shtml" target="_blank">Vance</a> (1999), <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/larry.shtml" target="_blank">Larry</a> (2006) and <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/yasi.shtml" target="_blank">Yasi</a> (2011) showed that the updated regulations have resulted in <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/en/education-events-resources/national-conference/~/media/Files/Download%20Documents/Marketing%20Docs/BAF/4%20David%20Henderson%20FINAL.ashx" target="_blank">much less building damage and consequent loss of life</a>. During Cyclone Yasi, for example, 12% of older homes suffered severe roof damage, but only 3% of newer homes.
Of course, this does not mean that newer homes are completely impregnable. <a href="https://www.jcu.edu.au/cts/publications/content/technical-reports/jcu-078421.pdf/view" target="_blank">Analysis of damage from Cyclone Yasi</a> showed some remaining “weak points”: tiled roofs, sheds, garage doors, and doors/windows. It was found that more attention needs to be paid to the design, testing, installation, use and maintenance of products, components and fixings. Revised standards have since been developed for roof tiles, garage doors and shed design.
The right way to think about risk
Campbell Newman’s comment about older houses was partially correct – houses built to older standards were indeed more likely to suffer damage. But his statement is perhaps also misleading. Current building standards for Far North Queensland are designed to protect structural integrity in winds up to a Category 4 cyclone. If Ita had crossed the coast and maintained its Category 5 intensity, it is possible that all of Cooktown’s houses – old and new – would have been subject to severe damage.
It is crucial that the community understands what hazards and risks are being addressed by building regulations, and which ones are not.
For example, current regulations address wind loading associated with cyclones, but take no consideration of wind-driven rain (a major cause of water damage). There are also three specific hazards that are not addressed: hail, storm surges and heatwaves. The first two present risks to property; the third contributes to heat stress, which is in turn linked to health problems and deaths.
When deciding whether and how to update the regulations, the ABCB considers both costs and benefits. Regulations will only change if the ABCB and its stakeholders determine that the cost of the changes (such as higher building costs) are less than the benefits (the expected savings in reduced damage).
As a result, the regulations establish minimum standards, not best practice standards.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
The community’s role
Home owners and residents therefore need to be aware of these limitations in the building regulations, and be much more proactive in determining what level of risk is appropriate to their circumstances. A simple risk assessment identifies three things:
<ol>
<li>
What hazards and risks might your house/unit/building be exposed to?
</li>
<li>
What is the likelihood and frequency of those hazards?
</li>
<li>
What are the consequences if the event happens?
</li>
</ol>
Property damage is perhaps the first risk that people consider, particularly in relation to natural hazards such as cyclones, floods and bushfires. But buildings and their contents can also be damaged by heavy rain, hail, tidal surges, ground movement, and other phenomena.
There are also financial risks associated with not taking action, such as increased power prices and insurance premiums. These financial risks affect everyone in the community.
Meanwhile, people who are directly affected by property loss can also suffer resettlement costs and loss of income.
What should you do?
Listening to the authorities is important, but you should take responsibility for your own household risks too. One way to do it is to take out <a href="https://understandinsurance.com.au/" target="_blank">home insurance</a>, but you need to be aware of what risks your insurance does and does not cover, and what are your responsibilities.
Another way to manage your risk is to take these things into consideration when you are building, buying or renting a property. Find out how a building has been designed and constructed to manage these risks. Ask the architect, designer, builder, estate agent, landlord, body corporate or local council for documentary evidence.
The insurance sector could also play a more proactive role in promoting better building design, perhaps by offering lower premiums for buildings with stronger construction.
Consideration also needs to be given to changing the way damaged buildings are evaluated and repaired after a disaster. New Zealand has acknowledged that the <a href="https://cera.govt.nz/sites/cera.govt.nz/files/common/recovery-strategy-for-greater-christchurch.pdf" target="_blank">earthquake recovery process</a> provides an opportunity for creating a more resilient city, not just restoring what was lost.
What is needed is a more collaborative approach to withstanding risks to our buildings, our property, and even our health. The ABCB seems to be <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/~/media/Files/Download%20Documents/Major%20Initiatives/Draft%20ABCB%20Discussion%20Paper%20on%20Resilience%20to%20Extreme%20Weather%20Events.pdf" target="_blank">moving in this direction</a>, and it should not be expected to go it alone.
We all have a role to play in creating robust and resilient neighbourhoods that stand up to natural hazards.
Wendy Miller is senior research fellow at Queensland University of Technology.
Wendy Miller receives / has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Climate Change Adaptation Fund. She is being sponsored by ICPS Australia to present her research findings at the Australian and New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference on the Gold Coast in May.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

How building codes save homes from cyclones, and how they don’t

<html><body>
The Gold Coast is set to have a new central business district at Southport, which is to undergo an economic and commercial transformation.
The Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, Jeff Seeney, has put out the draft development scheme, which looks to establish the Southport Priority Development Area. This is, Seeney notes, a joint vision between the Queensland government and the local council.
Now, however, it is open for public consultation.
“Our government is committed to growing the economy of the Gold Coast and a key strategy to achieve this is building on the potential of Southport as the CBD,” Seeney said.
“We are also achieving this goal through a number of other initiatives including the Gold Coast Light Rail and investment in the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, which will bring in an estimated $2 billion to the coast."
Southport was announced as the next CBD in October 2013, with the priority development area spanning 195 hectares of land including Southport CBD, Broadwater Parklands and some residential communities.
“Development will include opportunities for residential and non-residential development and the draft scheme was prepared by council with assistance from Economic Development Queensland," he said.
Meanwhile, Member for Southport, Rob Molhoek, said that this would be a 'coming of age' for the area.
“In the lead up to the Commonwealth Games and coincidently Southport's centenary, the declaration of this PDA ensures development and investment proposals have every chance of success," said Molhoek.
“My number one priority is to work with local business leaders to facilitate the reinvigoration of Southport as a centre for health, knowledge and business. I want to see new jobs created and opportunities maximised and this PDA will deliver that.”
The Mayor of Gold Coast City, Tom Tate, said that this CBD would be the "definitive centre".
“It has already attracted a large amount of investment and the proposed development scheme aims to attract more through a streamlined and facilitated approach to planning and development," he said.
“Southport is already a hub for commercial activities and community services, but the proposed development scheme wants to shape an appealing and active urban lifestyle for local residents as well.”
The final scheme is looking to be in place in late-2014. Those wanting to make a submission can do so until 22 May.
According to the plan, zones with high density highrise dwelling opportunities will be permitted. Highrise towers will be set above podiums or perimeter blocks, open spaces and roof terraces, and will open up some opportunities of 16-storeys plus in Precinct 2.
In Precinct 3, the Garden Residential Neighbourhood, opportunities for high density medium-rise developments will be available. This includes townhouses to medium-rise, and appears to span to a maximum of 15 storeys.
</body></html>

New Southport, Gold Coast CBD plans open for comment

<html><body>
Mackay is expected to see residential and commercial growth in the CBD area, with Ergon Energy undertaking a multi-million dollar underground cable project for future development.
Energy Minister Mark McArdle said that this was part of the plan to support the region and underpin future development.
The $5 million project, which includes installing a 2.7 kilometre high voltage underground cable from Hume Street to Alfred Street, may be of interest to business and commercial operators looking to move into the area.
“The project will meet the current load and improve the security of supply in the busy CBD area,” said McArdle.
He also pointed to its ability to cater for future residential and commercial development – suggesting that the River Street area would benefit.
A total of $73 million is planned for electricity infrastructure across Mackay, Whitsunday and Moranbah.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
</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