Rudd to Take Over Urban Planning

Tim Connolly, Managing Director

Starting up my computer this morning and clicking on to my standard news site, the lead headline promoted the fact that PM Kevin Rudd is planning on increased government involvement in urban policy and planning, with infrastructure funding linked to compliance with the ‘rules’.

Prompted to make this statement by recent government reports into the potential effects of Global Warming, Rudd also cited research by the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, who is also pushing towards federal involvement.

I was lucky enough to hear Dr Henry speak of his research at the recent Queensland University of Technology’s Business Leaders Forum. It was expected to be a review of tax reform, but instead, Dr Henry spoke about an upcoming government report predicting a population increase from 22 million to 35 million by 2049 and the need for strong urban policy from a federal level to guide the nation in planning for this growth, particularly when it comes to the environmental impact and the aging population.

So what does this mean for us? According to www.news.com.au, the Federal Government would “work with the states and territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, on drafting the new national rules next year and land planning and day-to-day decisions would be left to the states” ( source)

However, this move may face some opposition.

At present, the local government is accountable for all things property and planning, particularly to do with policy formulation and decision making, and their constituents elect them on their ability to deliver on things that affect their own backyard. The State then have their own layer of influence, particularly over broad reaching policy such as the Coastal Management Plan, the new revegetation plan and anything to do with koalas, just to name a few. Whilst the intent is valid, the administrative arrangements really make it difficult to operate in the industry. At present, planners are forced to navigate these two levels of government, with the State making it more and more difficult to create places in our own communities. An additional level of Federal ‘interference’ could go either way.

Most in the property profession would not relish having another layer of bureaucracy, however if the Federal government contents itself with dealing primarily with strategies to address our growing population and provides this direction to the state and local governments, we may be on to a winner. The most positive influence could involve funding conditions forcing state infrastructure spending to occur in a more proactive approach with urban and regional planning and growth. For example, they could be using infrastructure spending as a catalyst for growth and not expecting communities to be built the other way around. However, until we know the details of how these changes will be implemented, it’s hard to know the depth of the implications.

A recent attempt was made in Queensland to address the conflicts between State and Local government, through the Queensland Planning Provisions which simplified other planning legislation by increasing transparency and legibility to allow for ease of interpretation.

While there is a need for a greater relationship between local, state and federal government, this central planning approach doesn’t take into account the local character and issues affecting each local government authority. There will always be the need for local governments to consider the intricacies of each region.

The word from Mr Rudd is that the Local and State influence on city planning will not be supplanted.