Planning Policy

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80082/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Liveability is an increasingly important goal of Australian planning policy. And creating cities where residents can get to most of the services they need within 20 to 30 minutes has been proposed, at both federaland state level, as a key liveability-related mechanism. 
The previous federal government’s 2010 National Urban Policy stated:
"Liveable cities are socially inclusive, affordable, accessible, healthy, safe and resilient to the impacts of climate change … Liveable cities provide choice and opportunity for people to live their lives, and raise their families, to their fullest potential."
In Victoria, keeping Melbourne “attractive and liveable” is the cornerstone of the state government’s newly updated Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 strategy. Liveability is seen as a way to stay globally competitive, attracting more business and more international students, Victoria’s most profitable service export.
Our summary of research on liveability indicators also points to strong links with general population health and environmental sustainability. 
Plan Melbourne’s vision of liveability involves:
"… a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods … where people can access most of their needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip."
The plan discusses people’s need for access to a long list of local services – shopping centres, health facilities, schools and lifelong learning opportunities, playgrounds and parks (including community gardens, green spaces and recreation facilities), affordable housing (including the ability to age in place) and “local public transport”. 
It also values attributes such as “safe”, “walkable” and “attractive”. Specifically excluded is a 20-minute commute to most employment, although the plan mentions local work opportunities. 
To create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods over Plan Melbourne’s 30-year time frame, at least three strategic planning challenges must be overcome. 
<h2>How do we define and measure success?</h2>
First, the plan fails to specify what access means and how it is measured, as well as what local needs are key. For instance, the average speed of a leisurely walk by a healthy adult along a relatively flat footpath is five kilometres per hour. Older and younger pedestrians may be slower. 
Including the time lost to stopping at intersections and meandering footpaths, a “pedshed” analysis often equates a 20-minute walk with a distance of 800 metres. 
Plan Melbourne does not list the essential social infrastructure or distance measurement methods that will be used to create the 20-minute radius for each neighbourhood. This poses problems for the important task of tracking progress. 
In contrast, the US city of Portland’s strategic plan for a 20-minute city requires four key pieces of social infrastructure located close to affordable residential housing. These are: public primary schools, grocery stores, green parks, and public transport stops with minimum travel frequency standards. 
 
In Australia, given our growing elderly population, bulk-billing health services might also be required infrastructure in each 20-minute neighbourhood. 
<h2>Infrastructure deficit is daunting</h2>
In 1995, homes selling for A$100,000 or less were well within the means of median-income households in areas with good public transport access, like Maribyrnong, Dandenong and Heidelberg. 
By 2015, homes selling for $415,000 (the new 25th percentile) were in areas like Gippsland, Sunbury and Bacchus Marsh. That’s well beyond the reach of metropolitan public transport. 
Plan Melbourne does talk of “two cities” – the well-serviced, unaffordable central city, and underserviced middle and outer suburbs. But the plan does not adequately recognise the city’s severe and unfairly distributed infrastructure deficit. 
The words “liveable” and “liveability” appear 40 times in 152 pages (with prefixes such as “protect”, “improve” and “world-renowned”); “equitable” and “equity” only five times. 
This infrastructure deficit casts a daunting shadow over Plan Melbourne. To provide adequate transport and health services to Melbourne’s outer suburbs, SGS Economics and Planning, working with the National Growth Areas Authority, estimated funding of $5 billion a year will be needed over the next 15 years. 
The Grattan Institute has calculated that Victoria will need around 220 new schools, mostly in outer suburbs, over the next ten years. Each primary school costs an average of $15 million to build, and high schools more than twice that. 
In May, the state auditor highlighted the chronic underfunding of 1,500 existing primary schools as a concern. The report also emphasised the need to greatly improve strategic planning for new schools. 
Social housing, recognised as a vital priority in Infrastructure Victoria’s recent 30-year strategy, is a critical shortfall across Melbourne. The shortfall is particularly acute in areas with adequate infrastructure. The strategy estimates 75,000 to 100,000 low-income households’ needs are unmet. 
To keep pace with population growth, 50,000 dwellings a year must be built. At least half would need to be accessible to households in the bottom half of the income scale. 
A Commonwealth advisory report on housing affordability found almost half of Australian renters are in housing stress, as median home ownership costs have risen from the recommended 2.5 times annual household income to well over six times. 
The well-serviced central cities have the highest housing prices, with Sydney and Melbourne the worst. 
Plan Melbourne talks about housing affordability in general terms. What it lacks is specific affordable housing targets for inner and middle suburbs with adequate infrastructure to overcome inequalities in delivering the 20-minute city.
<h2>Tax system hinders funding</h2>
The state is responsible for strategic planning and most infrastructure provision, but the Commonwealth controls most of Australia’s tax revenue. The result is that, despite being home to one in four Australians, Victoria gets only about 8% of federal infrastructure spending.
And the federal government is one of the main contributors to the affordable housing crisis by subsidising housing speculation through negative gearing and capital gains tax exemption. 
The Grattan Institute estimates these measures cost the budget almost $11.7 billion per year. That’s enough to fund essential infrastructure improvements across Australia. 
<h2>Possible pathways to improvement</h2>
So what is the prognosis for 20-minute cities? What could be done to increase the chances of achieving this important goal? 
The state government could clarify its definition of key access indicators, and begin mapping 20-minute access by neighbourhood to monitor progress, as Portland does.
Vancouver, Canada, has included access indicators in its planning for family-friendly, high-density housing since 1992. The indicators include a maximum distance of 800 metres to a community centre, a grocery store, a public primary school and associated play area, daycare centre and after-school care; and 400 metres to a playground and a frequently serviced public transport stop.
An evaluation of the 50,000 residents in the central Vancouver community of False Creek North showed high levels of satisfaction among households that settled there.
Victoria could also follow Portland’s example of giving priority to improving infrastructure in under-serviced areas and to providing affordable housing in well-serviced areas. Plan Melbourne still lacks mechanisms to achieve this.
The 20-minute city is a worthy goal. As difficult as it may be to imagine at the moment, federal, state and local governments must collaborate, along with private developers and investors, if the access needs of all city residents are to be met.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944" target="_blank">Carolyn Whitzman</a> is Professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

A 20-minute city sounds good, but becoming one is a huge challenge

<html><body>
The recent slowing in price growth, and even sizeable price declines, provides some Sydney first time buyers with opportunist purchasing prospects.
But while intense competition from investors has dropped off, there has been renewed demand arising from the overseas migration into Sydney.
Accordingly decentralisation should be more seriously on the agenda of all government as a means of addressing the affordability and liveability issues that young Sydneysiders confront.
We need to develop regional hubs where people can live, own, work and play without being expected to endure undue mortgage stress.
I'm old enough to recall the beginnings of what became the failed Albury-Wodonga decentralisation experiment. 
It was the 1973 vision of Premiers Sir Robert Askin and Sir Rupert Hamer overseen by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.
“Whitlamabad” as the soon-gone Prime Minister often jested.
Divided by more than a river, the scheme tried to undo state borders with the ensuing rivalry a recipe for disaster.
I was thinking of the failure when I veered off the Hume Highway for a quick lunch while recently driving between Sydney and Melbourne.
My prawns, crisp lettuce and avocado with a squeeze of farm gate lemon was superb. 
Here I was five hours inland on a stinking hot day over the Christmas break. Nothing that I couldn't have had at the seriously overcrowded Westfield Bondi Junction.
Lunch was doable because there's no tyranny of distance with food anymore, so why not our lifes.
What is so unpalatable to our smart youthful generations about living outside the big smoke?
Our entrenched public service bureacracies have a mindset which holds back the embrace of decentralisation.
Indeed it was public servants in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne who were horrified at the prospect of any forced move to Albury-Wodonga decades ago.
That self interest ensured the current crushing commutes are the daily outcome for much of the Sydney population.
But there are now bigger influences at work through globalisation. The emerging gig economy will certainly enable the great shift out - and cheaper travel and accomodation from the distruptive economy will assist those who have to occasionally come back into the rat race.
While the forces of disruption make their way through most industries, the antiquated public service mentality remains intact.
The recently unveiled vision of the Greater Sydney Commission of a ‘metropolis of three cities’ – Eastern Harbour City (the current CBD), the Central City (Parramatta and surrounds) and the ‘Western Parkland City’ (clustered around the Badgerys Creek Airport, Penrith and Campbelltown) - didn't inspire me.
The need is for increased housing supply incentives outside our key centres.
Decentralising will also assist in making urban life better for those who remain, not just the smashed avocado generation who really do aspire to home ownership, and a lifestyle somewhere, without too much stress.
This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph. 
</body></html>

Decentralisation should be a key home affordability response by government

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Cities policy in Australia has historically had a clear focus on the largest state capitals, but there are signs this is changing. Recent City Deals and smart cities funding shows that five of the six City Deals now in place are regional, and 55% of Smart Cities and Suburbs Program funding also went to regional cities. On the evidence so far, regional cities appear to be in the spotlight for the Australian government’s cities policy agenda.
Big and small cities matter to Australia. They are the concentrations of population, economic output, trade, commerce, cultural and social life. They are also the sites where most of the nation’s future growth, both population and economic, is forecast to occur. Australia’s economic future is closely linked to that of its cities.
In 2015, there was much excitement when the Turnbull government first announced a cities agenda, which (after a rocky start) delivered the Smart Cities Plan.
This was followed by two City Deal announcements and in 2017 much “busy work” behind the scenes; for many watching the City Deals space it was very quiet. By early 2018, when the most recent deals were signed, things had started to move in city policy, and recognition of the important role of regional cities became quite clear.
Regional cities now in the picture
Regional cities have been largely absent in past urban policy programs and debates. Most programs have focused on big city challenges: congestion, pollution, affordable housing, public transport and urban sprawl. The advent of the Smart Cities Plan has changed this with its focus on innovative policy mechanisms that require collaborative investment to drive national economic outcomes.
Many regional cities were waiting to see how the new agenda would roll out in reality. Recent interest has highlighted the role and importance of the smaller, regional cities’ economic performance. Still, too little discussion has occurred on their role in national policy.
Australian cities come in all shapes and sizes, from 50,000 to 5 million. Big metropolitan cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) as well as Australia’s smaller regional cities (Cairns to Hobart, Shepparton to Mandurah – 31 in total) are part of a growing national network of cities.
Internationally, the role of stimulating the economies of regional or second cities to lift overall national performance has been much more closely considered and acted on in the form of policy and programs. With the emerging emphasis on regional City Deals and Smart Cities funding, perhaps Australia is beginning to act on the lessons from overseas.
Regional cities benefit from funding shift
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203728/original/file-20180129-100905-1u6ev2w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 Author provided
When we look at the City Deals announcements made and agreements reached, we see that these still involve only an elite group of six cities (see timeline of agreements). Five of the six are regional cities: Launceston, Townsville, Darwin, Hobart and Geelong.
Of course another way of looking at this is that half the City Deals involve capital cities. Either way, this is a higher proportion of investment in regional cities than programs from decades ago, such as Building Better Cities (1991-96).
The regional focus is also very evident in the first round of funding released under the Smart Suburbs and Cities Program, a pillar of the Smart Cities Plan. Initial funding in 2017 was directed to delivering innovative projects to improve the liveability, productivity and sustainability of cities and towns across Australia.
Half of the first-round grants under the program (see table below) went to regional towns and cities. Two decades earlier, they received just over a third under the Building Better Cities program.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203727/original/file-20180129-100912-19g68qd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 ‘Other’ category indicates a project that involves both metropolitan and regional cities. Author provided
A breakdown of the 2017 funding round shows regional cities received 55% of the grant funds. The metropolitan “big five” received only 34%.
Future directions for regional cities
The City Deals policy and Smart Suburbs and Cities Program are pillars of the Smart Cities Plan. And both have had stronger regional city representation. Why?
First, European evidence is pointing to potentially stronger economic output per person where there are many cities, as opposed to only one or two big cities, driving a nation’s growth. Hence, investing in regional cities could be a reflection of the development opportunities for small cities to contribute to national economic growth – rather than focusing all policy effort on fixing big city problems like congestion. This multi-city investment might then stimulate stronger national economic growth, compared to a purely two-city investment strategy.
Second, it could be because both City Deals and the Smart Cities Plan are trials of new policy mechanisms. City Deals is a partnership requiring cross-jurisdictional and issues-based negotiations with local, state and federal government agencies for success. The Smart Cities and Suburbs Program is essentially a technology funding program based on collaboration with private enterprises to deliver local solutions on the ground.
Regional cities are ideal test beds for these policy mechanisms. They are contained entities, where engagement is clear and vertical, transaction costs are low, and learnings are transferable to other (bigger) cities. This ensures a clear role for experimenting with policy mechanisms.
But what about the longer term? Is it just convenient to work in smaller cities with proof of concepts? Will the real innovation be centralised back into the metropolitan areas? And will the nation spread the economic growth load across the nation or concentrate it among the few big cities? Only time will tell.
In 2015 Jago Dodson asked: “Could the federal government finally ‘get’ cities?” Recent progress looks promising. We are starting to see a national cities policy, rather than just a big cities policy.
Leonie Pearson, Adjunct Associate, University of Canberra
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cities-policy-goes-regional-90856" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Cities policy goes regional: Leonie Pearson

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION 
The NSW Government has extended the implementation date of two important planning policies by four months, as a sign that planning is slowing in NSW.
The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code was due to begin on July 1 2019 across all councils after being delayed for a year. But last Friday the planning regulations were changed to give 46 councils another four months to implement the code in their planning documents.
Sydney council Lane Cove has implemented the code from July 1 but they changed their Local Environmental Plan to prohibit multi dwelling housing in R2 Low Density Residential zones which dramatically reduces the availability of land where the code could apply.
It is likely that the 46 councils given another four months to implement the code will also restrict areas it can be applied.
The Urban Taskforce believes the ‘Missing Middle’ code has generated a perception across Sydney’s councils that it could change the character of the suburbs, and we recommended that councils define significant appropriate areas where a town house typology would be appropriate.
Last Friday also saw an extension given to the deadline for councils to produce a Draft LocalStrategic Planning Statement by 1 July 2019 to now be required by 1 October 2019.
The final statements were due on 1 December 2019 but these have been extended by four months to 31 March 2020.
Originally Sydney councils had to finalise their strategic plans by 1 July 2019 but in September 2018 councils were given an extra five months until 1 December 2019.”
The Urban Taskforce is concerned at the slowness of the implementation of these planning policies, as Planning Minister Rob Stokes has stated that his preference is to bed down the planning system so all parties have clear, fixed rules - but it seems the time span to do this is stretching out as the state government and councils try to drive outcomes.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

NSW planning policy deadline extension is a concern: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Conventional transport infrastructure planning has been based on wholesale commuting to and from the city centre. 
Long-term planning has delivered mass transit systems to cater for high-patronage, hub-and-spoke transport systems. Unfortunately, this has left many city residents <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Australian%20Infrastructure%20Audit%202019%20-%205.%20Transport.pdf">without basic access to public transport services</a>. And we could never have planned for the impacts of COVID-19.
Our previous plans were based on the best available data at the time. Today, these plans must be critically reviewed using new data that properly represent the world and our transport needs as they are now.
 
Important facts to keep in mind
1: Fewer people commute to work.
The <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-could-spark-a-revolution-in-working-from-home-are-we-ready-133070">work-from-home transition</a> is well under way. Our current transport networks (except for <a href="https://covid19.apple.com/mobility">roads</a>, which have rebounded to traffic equal to or above pre-pandemic levels in some cities) are operating far below previous levels, even allowing for social distancing. This may not be the best time to break ground on major infrastructure projects planned under previous assumptions of population and demand growth.
2: Disadvantaged populations lack access to opportunities.
Public transport is key to enabling everyone in a population to be a productive member of society. Many disadvantaged groups cannot drive or afford car ownership. However, they also <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/outer-urban-public-transport-improving-accessibility-lower-density-areas">lack access to public transport</a>, particularly in the outer suburbs.
Unfortunately, coronavirus impacts will <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-coronavirus-will-deepen-the-inequality-of-our-suburbs-143432">hit the disadvantaged the hardest</a>. If we want everyone to be able to participate in the economic recovery, we need to promote basic levels of access regardless of an individual’s circumstance.
 
3: Population growth will not meet projections.
Migration bans will greatly reduce short-term growth. Current projections show a population <a href="https://theconversation.com/1-4-million-less-than-projected-how-coronavirus-could-hit-australias-population-in-the-next-20-years-143544">up to 4% smaller in 2040</a> than it would have been in a non-COVID world. This will further decrease demand for urban transit services as well as demand across many sectors of our society. These trends are important because much of our planning is based around these population growth metrics.
However, our suburbs still lack basic public transport services. If we want to increase patronage, we need to bring services to more people by improving coverage of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-need-to-give-up-on-crowded-cities-we-can-make-density-so-much-better-131304">sprawling, low-density cities</a>.
<a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/outer-urban-public-transport-improving-accessibility-lower-density-areas">Over 80% of the population</a> of our biggest cities live in the outer and middle suburbs, yet this massive majority have limited to no basic public transport service. Across our five largest cities, Infrastructure Australia <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/outer-urban-public-transport-improving-accessibility-lower-density-areas">reports</a>, “public transport disadvantage in outer suburbs is significant”.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353993/original/file-20200821-18-1ctpvl6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Populations living in inner, middle and outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide"> Estimated resident population by suburban classification, as count and proportion of city population. <a class="source" href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/outer-urban-public-transport-improving-accessibility-lower-density-areas">Infrastructure Australia: Outer Urban Public Transport: Improving accessibility in lower-density areas</a>
Households’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/rapid-growth-is-widening-melbournes-social-and-economic-divide-117244">access to jobs and services gets much worse</a> with increasing distance from the city centre. Development of suburban and regional <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-mobility-as-a-service-maas-to-solve-our-transport-woes-some-things-need-to-change-105119">mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) offerings</a> could promote better access in these “harder to serve” areas.
Moving the country forward
Job creation will be an important aspect of economic recovery. Yet too often we look to large construction projects as the answer. There is plenty of other job-creating work to be done in our communities.
We could, for example, increase the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cycling-and-walking-can-help-drive-australias-recovery-but-not-with-less-than-2-of-transport-budgets-142176">miserly funding</a> for our piecemeal walking and cycling networks.
We could also <a href="https://theconversation.com/1-million-rides-and-counting-on-demand-services-bring-public-transport-to-the-suburbs-132355">expand on-demand services</a> to suburban and rural residents who lack basic public transport access. On-demand transit does not follow fixed routes or timetables. Riders book a trip for a cost similar to a bus fare.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362371/original/file-20201008-14-1j0ilu4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Passenger waiting to board a Bridj on-demand bus service."> Bridj is one of the operators that is expanding on-demand services in Sydney and other cities. <a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/TakeBridj/photos/a.1412498639012150/2080642258864448/">Bridj Transit Systems/Facebook</a>
These options will <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-the-sums-bicycle-friendly-changes-are-good-business-58213">encourage local spending to support small businesses</a>. These are an important piece of our social fabric and improve <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-reminds-us-how-liveable-neighbourhoods-matter-for-our-well-being-135806">livability in our communities</a>.
We need to look locally
A focus on localised investment in the many neglected communities across the country will deliver major benefits. Money already committed to large projects that are under way represents sunk costs that may be too deep to renegotiate. However, future plans using public funds must be re-examined.
Investments should target disadvantaged groups and broaden access to transport networks, encouraging new potential users. For many, assistance in gaining access to the necessities of life will be invaluable during the coming economic recovery. Guaranteed access to groceries, medical services, work opportunities and <a href="https://theconversation.com/parks-and-green-spaces-are-important-for-our-mental-health-but-we-need-to-make-sure-that-everyone-can-benefit-142322">recreational activities</a> must not be reserved for the elite.
We need better localised public transport and we need it for the majority of citizens, not just those who live in the inner suburbs of our capital cities. Most regional populations lack even rudimentary public transport coverage at reasonable frequency.
Increasing services in these areas will create valuable jobs that will stick around, unlike large one-off construction projects. The money will stay local, going into the pockets of operators who live and work in their own community.
While our long-term planning is not to blame for our current situation, we need to develop for the future, not the past. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/westconnex-audit-offers-another-17b-lesson-in-how-not-to-fund-infrastructure-73206">financial costs</a> of building and maintaining our current infrastructure are not going away. However, we can no longer refuse to invest in many of our underserved communities.
It is time to ensure everyone, regardless of their income or where they grow up, has the basic services they need to be a productive member of society.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144802/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;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/benjamin-kaufman-611843">Benjamin Kaufman</a>, PhD Candidate, Cities Research Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-impacts-demand-a-change-of-plan-funding-a-shift-from-commuting-to-living-locally-144802">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Planning Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Planning Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News