Regional Planning

<html><body>
A regional development inquiry has found another reason for a national settlement strategy.
The Planning Institute Australia (PIA) has welcomed a Parliamentary Select Committee’s call for greater investment in Australia’s rural and regional towns, citing their report, “Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia’s Future”, as further clear evidence of the need for an integrated national settlement strategy.
After the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation report published its findings last week, Chief Policy Officer Rolf Fenner acknowledged PIA had consistently called for the Commonwealth to acknowledge the wider implications of its policy actions and investment decisions and to better promote regional development.
PIA believes that governments need to adequately fund research into the drivers of population change and settlement patterns in regional areas to understand to a greater degree the effects of it's policy actions.
As well as tp empower local communities to promote sustainable development and a better quality of life through integrated land use policies or spatial planning.
In its submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities in 2017, PIA repeated its call for a "clear spatial planning framework" to guide and promote regional development and "guard against growing inequality between city and country Australia".
Mr Fenner said efforts to counter regional inequality needed to go beyond the traditional emphasis on direct tax/transfer redistribution and 'pork-barreling' grant programs.
Instead they should focus more on geographically appropriate and targeted investments.
These include infrastructure provision, training and job creation activities, and strategic urban and regional planning frameworks endorsed by all levels of government.
“It’s pleasing the inquiry grasps what PIA has long understood, namely that our rural and regional communities must be great places to live and work if Australia is to continue to prosper as a nation,” Mr Fenner said.
“The liveability or amenity of a city, town or community is essentially how it feels and looks: the choice, quality and location of buildings, the parks, streetscapes, and the access to shops, schools, and recreational facilities,” Mr Fenner said.
“If we fail to invest in amenity, we will also fail to entice people to live or invest in regional Australia,” he concluded.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

PIA support Parliamentary committee's call for increased rural and regional investment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
After a full year spent delving into the economic and social challenges facing regional Australia, the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation this week delivered its report.
It’s a surprising piece of work. Why? Because it avoids the ingrained partisanship that has bedevilled regional policy in Australia.
Put simply, it’s good, rigorous work. It makes recommendations that any smart government, of any political hue, could support.
The report even avoids the landmines surrounding the highly contentious policy of decentralisation – the relocation of city-based public service agencies to the regions. It has sidestepped its most obvious route – a squabble over decentralisation – and instead taken a good, hard look at the big issues confronting regional communities and economies.
Let’s take a moment to recall the politically awkward background to this inquiry. It was launched following Barnaby Joyce’s controversial decision to uproot the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra and relocate it to Tamworth, in his own electorate.
A separate Senate committee had already inquired into that decision. Its report (issued a year ago) demonstrated the highly politicised nature of this policy terrain: the majority report, by non-government senators on the committee, firmly rejected the relocation, while the minority report by government senators slammed the entire inquiry as “a political witch-hunt”.
This new inquiry could have traversed the same terrain, with the same outcomes. Certainly, the terms of reference were heavily focused on the issue of decentralisation. But they also invited comment on the overarching wellbeing of regional Australia, and this provided an opportunity the committee members seized.
The committee’s report covers a sweeping range of issues, which is entirely necessary, given the complex interactions between regions and what the committee terms “megatrends” – things like globalisation, population ageing, urbanisation and technological change.
The committee’s recommendations are similarly comprehensive and unapologetically ambitious. The explicit goal is to move beyond the old “roads and rail” approach to regional investment. Instead, it supports strategic (or “catalytic”) investments that build workforce and leadership capacity, cultural capital and infrastructure to support and attract jobs.
The report even elucidates 12 principles of regional development. It’s a sure sign that the committee made a genuine effort to synthesise information from the 196 submissions it received and the more than 100 witnesses at public hearings around the country.
The 13 recommendations are arranged around a central strategy, with six interrelated themes:
<ul>
<li>
building “enabling infrastructure” that supports development
</li>
<li>
identifying regional development priorities through a national process
</li>
<li>
extending the fledgling City Deals program to regional cities
</li>
<li>
giving Regional Development Australia committees more power and resources
</li>
<li>
developing a proper policy for public sector decentralisation
</li>
<li>
strengthening regional universities.
</li>
</ul>
I’ll own up to being very pleased that my own recommendation made it onto the list: that the government prepare a white paper on regional Australia. This would elevate regional policy to the same hallowed arena as foreign, defence and security policy.
All of this would be monitored by a new Joint Standing Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, to cement parliamentary oversight of the work program.
And what about shifting all of those public sector jobs out of the capital cities and into the regions? This isn’t a new debate. In fact, decentralisation is a recurring theme in regional development, at both federal and state levels.
The practice of governments luring, or pushing, jobs from the corporate and public sectors into regional Australia stretches back to the 1930s. Since then, governments have periodically promised – and occasionally delivered – highly interventionist policies to move labour and capital from the cities to the country.
This inquiry was charged with examining decentralisation, and its report does exactly that, but in an admirably low-key way. Shedding more light than heat, the report insists that decentralisation should only be pursued where it makes sense – that it “should be part of a broader strategy for regional development”. That simple statement is a marked departure from the previous partisan bickering on this issue.
So where does this report leave us? And, more importantly, what does it do for the nearly 9 million Australians who live in regional and rural areas?
The answer is, the committee has laid out a far-reaching and highly practical work program for regional development. If either side of politics took up its recommendations, regional communities might find themselves in a better position to construct sustainable, enjoyable futures.
In the short term, an election is due in the next 12 months and there’s a good chance this report’s recommendations will be cherry-picked for election policies.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99136/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">But beyond the current electoral cycle, this report gives federal parliamentarians a comprehensive plan for meaningful work over the next decade or more. Here’s hoping they make the most of it.
Amanda Walsh, Associate Director, Government Relations, Australian Catholic University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/report-recommends-big-ideas-for-regional-australia-beyond-decentralisation-99136" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Report recommends big ideas for regional Australia – beyond decentralisation

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69199/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Special interest groups have had much more influence than the wider community on the new regional plan for Southeast Queensland.
A draft of the plan, ShapingSEQ, was recently released for comment. Prior input from the wider community was limited to submitting “thought bubbles”about the region without having the benefit of any report card on how the previous plan had performed. 
This process did not accurately gauge community concerns and submitters were not a representative sample. Perhaps it gave people the feeling they’d “had a say”. The process just as likely reinforced cynicism about government consultation.
Regional planning in Southeast Queensland began in the early 1990s when councils in the region signed up to the Regional Framework for Growth Management. This was a non-binding set of guidelines promoted by the state government to manage land-use change. 
Subsequently, this framework evolved into a statutory regional plan in 2005. It is noteworthy that consultation in the lead-up to the 2005 plan included the public release of discussion papers with options for the region’s future.
The initial focus was very much on getting southeast Queensland councils to accept the need for regional planning. At that time, the role of the wider community was relatively minor. 
A 1990 meeting of representatives from government, business, trade unions, professional groups and community organisations was an important impetus for starting the regional planning process. This “stakeholder” model of community engagement has been the dominant form of consultation ever since.
Stakeholders or citizens?
Stakeholders have particular vested interests – such as protecting the environment, promoting a business sector, or advancing a government agency’s agenda. 
Preparation of the 2016 draft plan involved several of these stakeholder “reference groups”. Participants in these groups were there to advocate for the organisation they represent, often making it more difficult to find “outside-the-box” solutions.
Consultation by negotiating with stakeholders is consistent with the dominant view that explicitly pursuing the public interest is less important than growing the economy. Consequently, an “issue management” approach has been taken, with stakeholders “competing” for influence over which development regulations are put in place. Within this worldview, trade-offs between stakeholders usually take place in a “growth first” framework.
An alternative is to promote informed deliberation by citizens who don’t represent particular interests. The Perth Dialogue with the City process shows how this “citizen” approach can work. 
This was a process of engagement with a large group of demographically representative Perth citizens. They were provided with relevant in-depth information before their deliberations about the city’s future.
Wide consultation overdue
It has been at least ten years since there was either an open performance review of southeast Queensland regional planning, or consultation with the wider community on options for the region’s future. Engagement with the wider community is particularly important now for a couple of reasons.
First, the 2016 draft plan claims to have a 50-year vision horizon, compared to the previous plan’s 20 years. Because of this change, the wider community should have been engaged in developing this new vision rather than being presented with a fait accompli in the draft plan. 
Second, the draft plan represents a significant change of focus from the previous 2009 plan. That plan aimed to reduce the region’s ecological footprint and mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the 2016 draft seems to be adopting a more “growth first” approach. 
It is noteworthy that virtually all references to climate change in this new draft are about adapting to change rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These significant changes should have been widely debated before the draft plan was prepared.
Independent report card needed
For a debate on future directions to be genuine, the community needs an independent, comprehensive report card on how things are tracking. 
The draft plan has ten indicators, some of which show modest improvement. However, other indicators, such as housing affordability and loss of biodiversity, have gone backwards. And koala numbers continue to decline.
The report card should also acknowledge that Australia (including southeast Queensland) has one of the worst records for resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic output of any developed country.
Moving beyond ‘predict and provide’
The draft plan largely takes a basic “provide land for the predicted demand” approach, which assumes that regional planning is a type of technical process best left to the experts.
However, regional planning always involves trade-offs between different economic, social and environmental values. These should be openly discussed through genuine community engagement.
By not providing opportunities for such engagement, the draft plan has failed to give the community a real say in the region’s future.
Brian Feeney is urban planning researcher, The University of Queensland and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-feeney-317083" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Regional Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Regional Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News