EXPANSION OF THE METROPOLITAN ADELAIDE URBAN BOUNDARY. Submission by the. Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division)

Transcription

1 Submission Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Boundary 24 August 2007 EXPANSION OF THE METROPOLITAN ADELAIDE URBAN BOUNDARY Submission by the Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division) The Planning Institute supports the current Urban Boundary for Metropolitan Adelaide as a means of: promoting sustainable urban development making the best use of existing land, infrastructure and social facilities minimising the need to travel encouraging sustainable rural development through the retention of productive agricultural land surrounding Adelaide. The Planning Institute supports the periodic review of the Urban Boundary for both Metropolitan Adelaide and the towns within the Outer Metropolitan area; however this review should be undertaken against well-defined and publicly known principles and criteria that support sustainable communities and economies. It is not clear what principles and criteria have been used to inform the proposed expansion of the Urban Boundary for Metropolitan Adelaide in the Planning Strategy. Without a well-defined set of publicly known principles and criteria the proposed Urban Boundary expansion lacks some credibility, particularly in the eyes of the community, and it could be seen as giving in to the demands of the development industry. Certainly, it appears that at least one of the Councils affected by this proposal feels that it has not been adequately consulted. That Council has highlighted a number of planning and infrastructure issues related to the expansion that do not appear to have been addressed adequately prior to the announcement of the proposed expansion. The adoption of well-defined and publicly known principles and criteria to use for the review of the Urban Boundary is essential and the process of review must include the engagement of the affected Councils. It should reflect the strategic planning that has or is being undertaken in these areas to ensure the full range of necessary issues is considered. The review should provide clear information that illustrates the issues considered and the justification for any Urban Boundary changes. The Planning Institute understands that Planning SA has been undertaking a study that examines growth options for the State so it is of some concern that this current expansion is occurring Page 1

2 Submission Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Boundary 24 August 2007 prior to the public release of the study. Again, the lack of rationale for the expansion in the context of defined principles and criteria is of concern and can invoke confusion and mistrust in the community. This reflects badly on planning and of the planning profession, which is clearly of concern to the Planning Institute of Australia given our interest in positively promoting planning and planners. Processes and decisions such as this one can further disenfranchise, and in some cases outrage, the community, who often see planners to blame. The planning profession has a responsibility to the community to pursue clear and transparent processes that achieve better holistic outcomes for the community. This current proposal can appear to be a fait accompli and a four week consultation process as a token effort, particularly when those Councils directly impacted also have to form a view and respond within that timeframe. The Planning Institute s position is that the Urban Boundary should be coordinated with a range of other spatial and non-spatial strategies and policies to be most effective in managing appropriate urban growth. These could include addressing land speculation, taxation, governance, levies, land use planning, social, economic and redistributive policies. The release of more fringe land is only one way of addressing the current housing affordability issues and it is important that more work is done on this issue on a range of fronts, not just land release. The Community Information sheet that is part of the consultation package touches on issues such as re-development within the existing metropolitan area and long-term planning; however the Planning Institute are concerned that there has not been enough focus on these issues for several years. The result is that re-development within the existing metropolitan area is getting increasingly difficult and substantial sites to achieve larger scale developments are limited. More effort and investigation is required to determine and implement a range of mechanisms to amalgamate and make available suitably sized and located parcels of land to facilitate good quality medium-high density development. It is critical that this issue is dealt with soon otherwise the pressure to expand the Urban Boundary will continue without the other goals of re-development being achieved. The Planning Institute sees this as a significant and important issue that must be addressed to ensure that the vision for South Australia in the Planning Strategy and the State Strategic Plan is achieved. Conclusion The Planning Institute believes that a well managed, up-to-date Urban Boundary supports the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, which has an emphasis on sustainable communities and metropolitan urban structure and form. We are concerned by the lack of publicly known principles and criteria used to determine the appropriateness of the proposed boundary expansion. We would welcome contributing to any such principles, policies and holistic evaluative frameworks for the review and expansion of the Urban Boundary. The Planning Institute would also like to see a more robust review process that engages with local government and forms a collective strategic approach to planning prior to make this and future Urban Boundary changes anywhere in South Australia. In summary, the Planning Institute s position is: We support the use of an Urban Boundary to manage urban growth. The criteria and rationale for this proposed expansion should be made available for public review and scrutiny. Page 2

3 Submission Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Boundary 24 August 2007 We advocate for a publicly known set of principles and criteria used for all future reviews of Urban Boundaries in South Australia. The lack of collaboration and consultation with local government areas affected by the proposal is of concern and reflects poorly on planning, and ultimately it may impact on the quality of outcomes for the community. We advocate for a clear process for all future reviews of Urban Boundaries in South Australia that incorporates meaningful and collaborative consultation with local government, and that relates directly to regional and local strategic planning directions and processes. The continued focus on land release on the metropolitan fringe as the main means of dealing with our population growth is short sighted and should be remedied with a stronger emphasis put on other growth solutions including urban re-development and the growth of our State s rural and regional centres. The Planning Institute of Australia (South Australian Division) appreciates the opportunity to contribute this submission and wishes to make a verbal submission if the opportunity is available. A copy of the Planning Institute of Australia (SA) policy position state on Urban growth boundaries is attached for you further consideration. Regards Kirsty Kelly MPIA State Manager Planning Institute of Australia South Australian Division Level 5, 33 King William Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 phone fax mobile kirsty.kelly@planning.org.au website - Page 3

4 Adelaide s Urban Growth Boundary Policy Position Statement Planning Institute of Australia, South Australian Division Level 5, 33 King William Street Telephone: Facsimilie: sa@planning.org.au Definition Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) are generally crude, but politically clear, tools for limiting or preventing the expansion of urban development into surrounding rural areas, and for releasing sufficient land to meet projected development demand over a period of decades often around 25 years. The appeal of UGBs lies in their apparent simplicity, visibility and certainty. Urban Growth Boundaries are most effective when integrated with other social, ecological, land use, procedural, spatial and financial policies. For example, a UGB would be effective when combined with: a metropolitan Spatial Development Framework that depicts targeted urban intensification/growth corridors changes to Development Plans that prescribe targeted mixed-use intensification in accessible locations at nodes and along selected urban access corridors area-based financial and other incentives. The Adelaide UGB The Adelaide UGB was determined by the State Government using specific assumptions, which presumed to still be valid. Consequently it should not require significant relaxation or tightening (beyond fine-tuning). (PIA notes that the primary assumptions of the current boundary relate mainly to the expansion of residential land within the inner and outer metropolitan areas as opposed to the needs of other land uses, such as productive lands inside or outside the boundary). Advantages of UGBs Planning for services and infrastructure Urban Growth Boundaries create a degree of geographical certainty and are vital tools for governments to use when providing utilities and social and economic infrastructure. Through the use of a UGB, services can be programmed and budgeted for, rather than having to constantly catch-up, which would be the case if development was to occur haphazardly. Urban Growth Boundaries are also used to concentrate new development to achieve viable thresholds for services such as public transport, schools and shopping. Protection of agricultural land and reserves Urban Growth Boundaries are a valuable tool for protecting prime agricultural land such as Virginia, the Hills and the Barossa from encroachment by non-agricultural uses. Such land is likely to become increasingly more valuable to the metropolitan community for food production rather than as land for housing. At the same time UGBs provide certainty for farmers to continue farming for the foreseeable future, and remove the temptation for them to sell, thereby removing often highly productive land from production. Urban Growth Boundaries also stop patchworks of new development spreading beyond the urban fringe. Such patchworks cause inevitable friction between farmers and new residents: farmers expect to be able to continue agricultural practices such as spraying and burning off to ensure their livelihoods, while new residents expect conditions to be much like established suburbs. In addition UGBs are a valuable tool for protecting buffer areas around environmental reserves. Page 1

5 Level 5, 33 King William Street Telephone: Facsimilie: Reducing travel demands By concentrating new development into planned areas throughout the metropolitan area, UGBs contribute to overall community and environmental health by reducing the need to travel, ensuring that public transport links to employment areas will be viable in a predictable timeframe, and making possible short trips to shopping areas catering for daily/weekly needs. Housing affordability and UGBs Urban Growth Boundaries provide a degree of certainty for the development industry, which can positively affect longer term housing affordability. However, criticism from some quarters has been made about the perceived link between Adelaide s current UGB and higher residential land prices. PIA does not believe that this link has been demonstrated and that only a generalised association can be made with any degree of certainty. PIA understands in general that a shortage of land (like any product) can cause land price rises, but that linking all housing affordability problems in Adelaide to the UGB is too simplistic because: an important distinction needs to be made between the amount of land within the UGB and the timing of its release. While there may be enough residentially zoned land per se, if it is released too slowly an artificial shortage can occur. Slow releases of land, including significant portions of broad hectare land, may pertain in Adelaide, especially as the Land Management Corporation (government) land, which is usually released relatively faster than private and company held broad hectare land, is now becoming relatively depleted (see Analysis of Broadacre Land, Adelaide and Outer Adelaide Statistical Divisions, 2002). One policy challenge may be to ensure that all residential land within the boundary is more effectively used and brought on stream, including private and company, before considering extending the boundary assumptions in forecasting residential lot yield and take-up for Adelaide use a very low yield of about 10 lots per hectare of residential broad hectare. If, for example, lot yield were increased by 20% to 50% equating to 12 or 15 lots per hectare the effective land supply estimate for housing could be increased substantially the untargeted, first home ownership grant artificially increased demand, decreased effective supply and brought forward home purchase for households in Australia by 2003 (21 ST Century Housing Careers and Australia s Housing Future, paper presented to National Housing Conference, Perth October 2005, Professor Andrew Beer, School of Geography, Population and environmental management, flinders University & Director Southern Research Centre, AHURI ) the cost of housing construction for a detached house in Adelaide, rose from $ in 1992 to $ in 2005 (ABS CAT. 8731) (caution : this needs to be considered in terms of construction costs per m2 and a related trend for larger houses which have not catered for smaller, more affordable houses on smaller lots) the demand for investor housing (reduced capital gains tax) combined with recent very low interest rates has overheated demand in certain sectors. In PIA s opinion, calls for an immediate (ie short term) release of more land on the fringe must be tempered with other views such as the South Australian Housing Industry Prospects Forum s Report 2005, which states that: Affordability will improve as the market continues to cool and ease the pressure on prices Increased allotment production and a cooling housing market has resulted in supply matching demand and the housing market is returning to pre-boom normal market conditions except for alterations and additions and retirement accommodation. Review of the UGB Any review of the UGB should take into account well-defined principles and criteria that seek a long-term, net social gain and be based on an evaluation of changing assumptions and the full range of related urban management tools with sufficient time provided to ensure change. Page 2

6 PIA SA Policy Position PIA (SA) Division s position and recommendations relating to the Urban Growth Boundary for Adelaide include the following (not in order of priority): PIA supports the current UGB for Adelaide as a means of promoting sustainable urban development; making the best use of existing land, infrastructure and social facilities minimising the need to travel encouraging sustainable rural development through the retention of productive agricultural land surrounding Adelaide. PIA believes that: a well managed, up-to-date UGB supports the effectiveness of the current Metropolitan Planning Strategy with its emphasis on sustainable communities and metropolitan urban structure and form. the UGB should be coordinated with a range of other spatial and non-spatial strategies and policies to be most effective. These could include addressing land speculation, taxation, governance, levies, land use planning, social, economic and redistributive policies. PIA supports the periodic review of the metropolitan and small towns UGBs against well-defined and publicly known principles and criteria that support sustainable communities and economies. PIA would welcome contributing to any such principles, policies and holistic evaluative frameworks. Level 5, 33 King William Street Telephone: Facsimilie: sa@planning.org.au 5 December 2006 Page 3