A STUDY OF

THE PORIIATION OF THE BRISBANE T01\rN PLAN

David N, Cox, B.A.

Department of Government and Political Science Submitted for the degree of Master of Arts

12 December 1968 CHAPTER I

TOWN PLANNING IN BRISBANE TO 1953

The first orderly plans for the City of Brisbane

were in the form of an 1840 suirvey preceding the sale of allotments to the public. The original surveyor was

Robert Dixon, but he was replaced by Henry Wade in 1843•

Wade proposed principal streets ihO links (92,4 ft.) in

width, allotments of ^ acre to allow for air space and

gardens, public squares, and reserves and roads along 2 the river banks.

A visit to the proposed village by the New South

Wales Colonial Governor, Sir George Gipps, had infelicitous

results. To Gipps, "It was utterly absurd, to lay out a

design for a great city in a place which in the very 3 nature of things could never be more than a village."

1 Robinson, R.H., For My Country, Brisbane: W, R. Smith and Paterson Pty. Ltd., 1957, pp. 23-28. 2 Mellor, E.D., "The Changing Face of Brisbane", Journal of the Royal Historical Society. Vol. VI., No. 2, 1959- 1960, pp. 35^-355. 3 Adelaide Town Planning Conference and Exliibition, Official Volume of Proceedings, Adelaide: Vardon and Sons, Ltd., I9I8, p. 119. He went further to say that "open spaces shown on the

pleua were highly undesirable, since they might prove

an inducement to disaffected persons to assemble k tumultuously to the detriment of His Majesty's peace."

The Governor thus eliminated the reserves and river 5 front plans and reduced allotments to 5 to the acre.

Streets in hot countries ought to be stifficiently narrow to exclude the sun, reasoned the Governor, as he ordered the designed throughways to be reduced one third in width. A compromise eventually set Queen

Street at 121 links, (about 80 ft.)^

However, the township in which the village was located almost immediately became the coiionercial centre for the north of the New South Wales Colony and later

Queensland. Chartered as a city in 1859> Brisbane was o characterized by rapid and haphazard growth. Several settlements started along the river ajid their separation made orderly control virtually impossible. The increase in nuisances and hazaards to public health resulting from

k Ibid., p. 119. 5 Brewer, F.J, and R. Dunn, Sixty-Six Years of Municipal Government. Brisbane:Standard Press, Bowen House, 1925» p. 79. Ibid., p. 79. 'Mellor, o£. cit.. pp. 35^-355. Q See Table I this development created a need for decisive action.

In 1865, the State Goveimment established a Central

Board of Health to investigate the sanitaory conditions of towns. Its subsequent report led to the proposal of a Health Bill in Parliament, but numerous criticisms led to the defeat of this attempt. In the meantime, the

Brisbane Council submitted a set of by-laws for approval by the Government governing the construction of drains and footpaths, the cleansing of streets, and the "general prevention and abatement of nuisances to the convenience 9 and health of citizens". Their subsequent adoption by the Govemor-in-Council was an initiation of Health

Controls.

The first State Government action came in I872 with the creation of a Central Board of Health and Local Boards of Health for municipalities. The powers of this initial act were expanded by an I878 Health Act. By its provisions, the local authorities couldnake by-laws regulating constructions materials and the form of build­ ings in any specified part of the municipality designated as a first-class area, enclosing dangerous vacant lots,

9 Greenwood, Gordon, and John Laverty, Brisbane:1859- 1959. Brisbane:Oswald L. Ziegler, 1959, pp. 180-182. •""^Ibid., pp. 182-183. forcing owners and occupiers to keep their premises

free from offensive and unwholesome materials and

restraining noisome and offensive trades. They were

also to have authority to regulate the width of new

public roads.

Wider latitude for mtonicipalities to engage in some

types of improvement schemes was granted by another I878

enactment. The "Public Works Lamd Resumption Act I878"

gave local authorities power albeit through protracted

procedures, to restime land for opening or diverting

roads and railways, opening or constimeting sewers and 12 constructing any public works authorized by parliament.

Under the act, the constructing authority issued a mapped plem of land proposed for use. Objecting persons

affected by the proposed resumption had one month to

submit their reasons in writing to the local authority.

If an enquiry was requested, the decision on the report was to be made by the Govemor-in-Council. 13 Determination of compensation under the I878 Act was part of the lengthy procedure. If the property owner

^^2° Vic. No. 8,, sec. 8, 12 Ibid.. sec. 9 ^^Xbid., Sec. 8-11 and local authority did not reach a settlement for

compensation, remuneration was set by two methods*

When the eunount was under £50 it was settled by two

justices of the peace. Any remiineration in excess of

£50 involved choosing arbiters for each party. If

they did not concxor, these men selected an umpire to rule on their differences and make the final decision if the arbiters did not reach an agreement within 60 days.

Early town planning powers were largely health measures, and the next act passed related to planningi was, by admission of the State Premier enacted for considerations of public health. Effective regulation of the subdivision of allotments was virtually non­ existent from the beginning of land sales in the Moreton

Bay Colony. The government of the colony set the first example by selling 3^-6 perch allotments between Eagle Street and the Post Office fronting on Queen Street*

There had never been a public outcry against it at the time* 15 Private subdividers continued the exploitation*

Ik Ibid., sec. 20-30 "^^Qld. Pari. Debs., I885, Vol. XLVII, p. 1288, 29, Sept Mr. F. Beattie, Fortitude Valley, charged in Parliament

that one man had cut up three acres by making streets

through it and dividing it into 126 allotments. The

size of these parcels for which £30 was being asked

was less than one-half the width of the Assembly's own 16 Chambers. Amateur land syndicators pursued an

unscinipulous practice of leasing a block of land with

a purchase clause. They would then subdivide and sell

allotments, returning receipts to the syndicate to make

the original purchase. If the latter became insolvent,

the purchasers of allotments were lonable to acquire a 17 valid title.

Inevitably, problems of such overcrowding and poor business practices led to the introduction of an act in

1885 to prevent their continuation. Titled the "Undue

Subdivision of Land Prevention Act", it established I6 perches as the minimxim allotment on which to construct a dwelling. Streets were to have a minimum width of 66 feet and lanes a minimtim width of 22 feet. No dwelling 1 8 was to be closer than 33 feet from the middle of a lane.

•*• Ibid., p. 1287

'Brisbane Courier.29 Oct, I885.

•"•^49° Vic. No. 15, Sec. 2-9. The bill also included provision for purchasers to

receive title to their land. ^ The bill was to be

enforced by the Registrar of Titles and offending

persons were liable to a penalty and their properties

could be considered a nuisance within the meeining of 20 the Health Acts.

Debate on the measure, in and out of Parliament,

revealed an opposition which was to be familiar in

debate oii many future proposals approaching planning

problems. Though the existence of the problem was

admitted by virtually all speakers, its opponents

charged that the act was too late to have any signifi­

cant effect. In the words of the Brisbane Courier,

"The act shuts the stable door after the steed has been 21 stolen." It was further charged that the act would

injure too many citizens. Sir Thomas Mcllwraith claimed

that citizens who had previously purchased allotments of

less than l6 perches and were saving to build in the future would be adversely affected. The Telegraph

stated the opinion of many supporters of the bill by

•"•^Ibid.. sec. 4.

Ibid.. sec. k-7• 21 Brisbane Courier, 30 Sept. 1885, admitting that there were "oppressive points" but adding, "of the two evils (to accept the bill with objections or reject it) it is better to go on (accept it) and afterwards provide for any difficulties which 22 may turn up." On the basis of the continued assert­ ions of the government that it was a health act to provide adequate aid and living space, the act was passed, but was amended to allow persons to build on properties of less than the prescribed l6 perches if purchase had been before the passage of the act. Even at its passage, there were criticisms of the bill's limitations and inadequacies. The Courier desired further building refonn by restricting building on inadequately drained low-lying land and unsEinitary 23 sites. A need for zoning powers was indicated by

The Week, particularly, to select a site for noxious and offensive trades. It warned that unless this was accomplished iimaediately, both the city £ind the persons 24 affected would "suffer future unhappiness and conflict."

The failure of the act to prevent allotments from being overcrowded by buildings was soon to severely limit

22 Telegraph. 23 Oct, I885. ^^Brisbane Courier. I3 Oct. I885. The Week. 17 Oct. I885. 25 its intended affect.

Partial redress to these inadequacies in the law came in I9OO in a bill amalgamating and extending the

Health Acts. Thereafter, local authorities could prohibit the erection of dwellings on low-lying lands 2.6 subject to flooding. Though not an actual grant of zoning power, municipalities were given limited control over the establishment of offensive trades within their area. Persons desiring to engage in such a business were required to have the written consent of the local 27 authority.

Public health was the consideration for another extension by the act of the local authorities' control over existing industries. Any trade which was deter­ mined to be a nuisance or injurious to health could be abated and the authority could go outside its own area if it was affected. No attempt was made to restrain the overcrowding of allotments with buildings, but the

1900 act did include provisions affecting persons in residences. No person was to either let or occupy a cellar dwelling. In addition, the local authority.

25 Greenwood, OQ. cit., pp. 4o6-407 26 64° Vic, No. 9, sec. 45. ^"^Ibid.. sec, 87. 28' Ibid., sec. 85. 10

could make by-laws preventing the overcrowding of 29 residents in houses and premises.

Other measures in the Health Acts gave municipal­

ities authority over sewers and to clean up nuisances

such as pig sties, rubbish, and stagnant waters. The

local authority could even be forced to act. If it

failed to cleeui a street following the receipt of a

written complaint by an affected citizen, the authority 30 was liable to a fine. Previous powers for improvements

such as moving or cleansing filthy or dilapidated

buildings were included and continued in the Act.3 1

Uniform traffic control originated in the Brisbane

area with the government foniiation of the "City and

Suburban United Municipality" in I885. In 1886 an act

established the Metropolitan Traffic Board consisting of

representatives from Brisbane, Toowong, Ithaca, Toombul,

Woolloongabba, Booroodabin, and Yeerongpilly, Its

ftinction was the regulation of traffic, licensing and

regulation of public vehicles, expenditure of licensing

29 Ibid., sec. 89. of. Woolcock, John, and Marcus Hertzberg, Local Government, Brisbane:Government Printer, 1913, pp. 473-^94. 30 ' JHjid., sec. 64. •^"S^oolcock, og. cit., p, 4l. 11

32 fees, and enforcing by-laws related to these functions.

Rapid turnover of members of the board failed to maintain continuity in policies. With 7 members it often took the board a long time to reach a consensus.3 3

The Metropolitan Transit Commissioners Act was enacted in 1895 to alleviate these faults. It was constituted of the Commissioner of Police, one commissioner each for a 2-year term from Brisbane, South Brisbeme, all other local authorities in themetropolitan area, and licensees; and an appointee by the Governor-in-Council. Its powers continued to be control of traffic in the area and the regulation of public carriage vehicles. 34

This board wasdissolved and authority over traffic was taken by the State Government in I905. Regulations were to be made by the Govemor-in-Council upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police. The

Commissioner and members of the jjolice force became responsible for the administration of the regulations, subject to the Minister. 35

32 Greenwood, og. cit., pp. 23O-232. -'^Id. Pari. Deb., Vol. LXXTV, I895, p, I667, l4 Nov, 59^^ Vic. No. 34, sec. 3-7. ^^5° Edward VII No. 18, sec. 3-6. 12

The next attempt to implement any regulations re­

lating to planning matters were inclusions in the "Local

Authorities Act of 1902". Consolidating and amending

all acts relating to local authorities, it was described

as "the most comprehensive local authorities legislation

in the Commonwealth." The greater part of the act

received approval by a committee of 10 members chosen,

because of the magnitude of the act, to select the most

contentious sections for debate. Committee debate in

Parliament was mainly concerned with valuations, franchise

and administrative structure for the local authorities.

Town planning schemes involve the raising and expendi­

ture of funds for improvements, and consideration of the

1902 act heralded the involvement of an additional element

of the city population. Labor proposed that all ratepayers

participate on loan referendums. This was the beginning

of an effort to extend to aJ.1 citizens an opportunity to participate in approving municipal schemes. This

egalitarianisra was premature and the bill was passed as

originally proposed. The Brisbane press, lacking a solidly

Labor paper, supported the measure as it had been intro- duced. 37 This allowed 20 ratepayers to petxtion and

^Brisbane Courier. 7 Oct. 1902.

^'^'%e Week. 20 Nov. 1902 and Telegraph. 25 Nov, 1902. 3.J

initiate a referendum on a loan by the authority, parti- cipated in by only ratepayer owners of rateable land.

Another major point of contention was the arbitrary authority of the Home Secretary over the local authorities.

It arose on provisions for authorities to open and regulate development of new roads within their areas. The authority had powers to open a new road or divert an existing one but the final power of alignment lay with the Minister. The

Minister could cause an alignment to be made open to the objections by the local authority and affected persons, 39 The Minister then ruled on the objections. To Brisbane's Mayor, Alderman L.G. Corier, it was the same as being 4o ruled by the Minister rather than the Governor-in-Coxjncil, but such remonstrations failed to move the members and

Ministerial authority was continued.

Ministerial authority was the point of contention in the act's provisions for local authorities to regulate proposed roads and subdivisions. The "Undue Subdivision of Land Prevention Act" of I885 established required widths for new roads, Subdividers, however, often provided

^^Qld, Pari. Deb., Vol. LXXXIX, 1902, p. 749, 2 Oct. 39 Fowles, E. W. H. and E. A. Douglas, Local Government Law, Brisbane:The Law Book Company of Queensland Ltd., 1911, p. 157. ^^The Week. 24 Oct. 1902. 14 for the roads in \ansuitable and inaccessible places increasing the expense in formation and maintenance 41 borne by the local authority. To curb this practice, all plans and maps of any subdivision showing proposed new roads were sent to the local authority. If it ob­ jected to any part of the plans, the authority had 28 days to send the Minister the proposal with its object­ ions and reasons. Again, the Minister or his appointee 42 was responsible for the final decision on the plans.

Points of law could be appealed to the Land Courts and

Supreme Court but alignment decisions were in the discretion of the Minister.

There was general agreement on placing such require­ ments on subdividers but still objection to the absolute authority of the Minister, Mayor Corier repeated his previous charge against what he saw as "ministerial rule". It was argued that the local authorities were the principal parties concerned and such decisions were for their jurisdiction.4 4 The ¥eek averred that it was a

n/oolcock, J.L,, The Local Authorities Acts of 1902. Brisbane:Government Printer, 1902, p. 57« ^\ld. Pari Deb., Vol. LXXXIX, 1902, p. 7^9, 2 Oct. ^Ibid.. p. 1005. 44 The Week. 2 Nov. 1902. 15

perpetuation of patronage.4 5-^ Gxve the local authority

primary jurisdiction over roads with an appeal to the

Minister was a compromise suggested by the Brisbane 46 Courier. The Government, however, continued to main­ tain that it should have final authority over such matters and that such authority was well within the role of the Minister. Local authorities were granted other powers relat­

ing to roads. These included setting levels, building

bridges, and requiring roads to be no less than one 47 chain wide and no less in width than access roads.

They could make by-laws as to kerbing, paving, guttering

and materials affecting roads and footpaths and to 48 regulate projections over the same. Adjacent land

owners could petition the Governor-in-Council for an

Order-in-Coxincil to close a road given the assent of the

local council.4 9

Limited town planning powers could be discerned in

the 1902 act's extension of building regulation authority.

^Ibid. 46 Brisbane Courier. 25 Nov. 1902. ^"^2° Edward VII No. 19, sec. 31-38; cf. Woolcock, 1913, op. cit., p. 75. 48 Ibid,. sec, 45-50. "ibid,, sec. 86; £f. Woolcock, I903, 0£. cit., p. 62. 16

The 1885 Undue Subdivision of Land Prevention Act's

failure to prevent the overcrowding of land by structures

was remedied by granting local authorities powers to

make such by-laws. This authority also included the

regulation of space between buildings to secure adequate 50 air-space and circulation. The erection of dwellings

without frontage to a road was prohibited. 51

A Building Bill, adapted froia the London Building

Act of 1876, was proposed and later withdrawn by the

government in 190O because it was believed to be of too 52 great a magnitude for Queensland. It provided the

impetus, however, to include in the 1902 act powers for local authorities to enact by-laws regulating the con­

struction of buildings. The Brisbane City Coxincil utilized this authority and in 1904, in collaboration with the Institute of Architects and Builders' Associa­ tion drafted comprehensive building code by-laws. This code was tightened and modernised on the advice of the

Ibid., sec. 6, schedule IV.

Ibid., sec. 6, schedule IV, cf,, idem, p, 93* e;2 Ibid,, p. 87. It was felt that its provisions would not be required for many years to come in a large proportion of the areas under local government control. It was more in accord with the government policy tox^rard local authorities to let them make by-lrxws relating to matters in the Bill to suit their individual requirements, 17

Fire Brigade Board in 19l4* 53 Provisions to declare buildings dangerous or neglected were also continued.5 4

Fire prevention was a significant motive for most of the building code by-laws and not the least important for the power to declare "first class areas", areas so declared by the Govemor-in-Council upon request by the municipality. In the defined area, the framework, external walls, and roofs of all buildings were to be of fire-resistant materials* 55 First Brisbane, and then in

1924 South Brisbane, included their central commercial areas under these provisions.

Improvement powers included in the act allowed local authorities to dredge or widen waters under its control and reclaim waste low-lands, A majority of ratepayers on land in a watershed could petition the authority for its drainage* 56 The Govemor-in-Council could grant a

Council by-law powers to manage any parks or reserves placed in its control* In addition, with Ministerial consent, the authority could resiome or rent lands for such public uses as parks, recreation grounds, baths, and public amusements* 57

-'•^Greenwood, o_£. cit., p. 408 ^2° Edward VII No, 19, sec. I67. ^^Ibid.. sec. 165. ^ Ibid., sec. 324* ^"^Ibid.. sec. 62. 18

By this time, many of the Council's efforts were frustrated and hampered by the delays inherent in the

"Public Works Resumption Act I878". Resumption became a cumbersome and time consuming process. The expensive system of arbitrators and umpires further added to delays and costs, A I906 Resumption Act reduced these encum- 58 brances. Under the act, the constnicting authority was to issue notice for land to be resumed and objections to the proposal had to be lodged within 30 days. If there were no objections, the Govemor-in-Council could proclaim theland resumed. If the constructing authority and property owner could not reach an agreement on compen- sation, the case was immediately sent to the land courts. 59

This eliminated many of the delays written into the I878

Act. Both the Brisbane and South Brisbane City Coioncils engaged in positive projects such as widening and extending streets, under the new act.

The absence of space for parks and reserves had aliirays been a problem for Brisbane; Governor Gipps eliminated most proposed sites and even some of the remaining reserves

58 Greenwood, OQ, cit., p. 225,

^^2° Edward VII No, 19., sec, 6-8,

Greenwood, _0£, cit. , p, 226, 19

had been encroached upon by subdividers. Deprived of a

controlling idea, the city grew in this haphazard fashion

with no systematic attempt to provide for present or future 61 needs in the way of parks or recreation space* Local

authorities failed to use existing powers under the "Public

Works Land Resijmption Act I878" or the "Local Authorities 62 Act 1902" to provide the needed reserves.

In 1912 came the first attempt by the State Government

to compel local authorities to exercise their powers. The

eunending act provided that if not less than one-fifth of

all ratepayers on rateable land petitioned for a specific park area, the local authority had 60 days to conduct a poll of the ratepayers in which a majority of those voting 6T decided the issue. In addition ein amendment in 1913 authorized the Governor-in-Council to require local author­ ities to secure additional park space if this was considered essential.^"

Debate on the 1912 Act again repeated the consideration given for previous town plaxming related provisions. Need

Adelaide Conference, Australian Town Planning Confer­ ence and Exhibition, a£. cit., p. 119.

Restamption powers under 42 Vic No. 8, sec. 8-II3, and 2° Edward VII No, 19, sec. 69-71*

^^3° George V. No. I6, sec. 10* 64 Greenwood, _0£. cit >. p. 228. 20 for the principle of the act was unanimously admitted but contention arose on the procedure for resolving this need. In opposition. Labor remonstrated that all rate­ payers, not just those owning land, had an interest in the community and should be alloxved to participate in any petition or poll on improvement expenditures for parks. The Brisbsme Courier, in stating the prevailing attitude, contended that the property owner is an investor in the local authority and an "unmistak:able hostage".

Tenamts could vote in a huge debt and leave the property owners holding the bill. 65

Park facilities were extended tinder the act. The

Brisbane City Council expended £75,000 in the 12 years following 1913 to secure 7 parks, 3 reserves, and 2 play- grotinds. South Brisbane and other suburban cotxncils also restimed or purchased new parklands. By 1925, there were no fewer than 95 parks and reserves with a value of

$267,984.^^

Part of the increased awareness in planning needs was a result of the 1917 and I918 Australian Town Planning

^Brisbane Courier, 10 Oct, 1912. 66 Greenwood, ££. cit., p. 4ll. 31

Conferences and Exhibitions. Held in Adelaide and Brisbane, respectively, the conferences acknowledged a growing recognition of the need for and feasibility of practical town planning principles. The agenda reviewed the problems and proposals for schemes adopted to Australian cities. Brisbane's reserve indigence was outlined at

Adelaide and many of the principles propounded by the

Conference were to serve as guidelines for recontmendations 61 and later legislation.

A major objection to restiraption procedures was that cotjncils could only resume the portion of a property which they proposed to use. Prices became exorbitant in many cases where full compensation had to be paid on the whole of the land and buildings damaged though the cotoncils 68 could only acquire the portion. A need to improve several streets and intersections and an immediate objective of widening Adelaide Street to lay a tram line required a remedy to these defects in the "Land Resumption

Act 1906"*

The "City of Brisbane Improvement Kot I9I6" and later "City of South Brisbane Improvement Act 1924" provided

67 Robinson op. cit,, p. 64 ^^Qld. Pari, Deb,, Vol. CXXV, I916, p, 2516, 12 Dec. 22

that the city cotincils could resiome a whole property

though only using part of it. Procedure was also

simplified and restimption time cut. The city deposited

a plan, open to the public, showing land to be taken.

Upon approval of the Govemor-in-Council, any land

required under the plan could be declared taken 90 days

afterward. Compensation claims were referred to the 70 Land Courts.

Some members had "little faith" that the Brisbane

Cotjncil could have the ability to use the powers in the

act.7 1 In the opinion of Greenwood, however, "...both

Councils approached their responsibilities with 72 imagination and resolve." The authority was given to borrow £1,000,000 to widen and extend streets, improve

dangerous intersections, expand park and recreational

facilities, and make other improvements. 73

As yet, the early acts had in no sense granted

complete town plsinning powers. Increasing civic problems resulting from poorly regulated and rapid growth were

^Ibid,. p, 2402, 7 Dec,

7«Ibid*

^"'•Qld. Pari. Deb., Vol. CXXV, I916, p. 2402, 7 Dec 72 Greenwood, jo^. cit., p. 4lO. -^Brewer, o;^. cit, , p, 67. 23

identified by such bodies as the Australian Town Planning

Conference, the Queensland Town Planning Association and

the Local Authorities Conference. Newspapers partici­

pated in creating public awareness. The Labor Party's

Daily Standard accused the public of apathy. Citizens

were "notoriously lacking in civic pride and unless

bombarded by continuous propaganda to the need for

Planning, they will continue to let things slide." 74

Earlier, they had warned, "the longer action is deferred

on town planning the greater the costs and difficulties." 75

Recognizing these needs, the state govemment included

some of the first real town planning powers in the 1923

Local Authorities Amendment Acts designed to improve

the working of local authorities and permit them to

execute ftanctions which would be too txnwieldy and cumber­

some if managed by the Govemment.

The act attempted to rectify inadequacies in previous measures dealing with subdivisions. A local authority

could apply to the Govemor-in-Council for an Order-in-

Cotoncil declaring an area a residential district. Within

"^ Daily Standard, 24 Aug. 1923*

"^^Daily Standard. 5 Aug., 1915. 24 this area, a square with a lane for foot traffic and a reserve for children to play in could be subdivided for homes to be built on less thsm l6 perches. This principle was recommended by the Town Planning Association and 76 accepted in the legislation. Declaration of an area as a residential district prohibited within its boundaries the erection or use of any building for business or mantifacture and of advertisement hoardings unless pre­ scribed by the local authority. The authority could also regulate the class, qtiality, and description of buildings erected or allowed to continue. These powers were congruous with the provision for a cotincil to zone any part of its area by an Order-in-Cotmcil.7 7

Local authorities were given more control over sub-divisions in areas not declared residential districts.

They could fix the maximum ntomber of houses erected per acre in a subdivision, provided the ntimber provided a minimum area of I6 perches for each house. The whole area to be embraced, including roads, reseirves, open spaces and 78 the like was to be considered in applying this standard.

"^^Qld. Pari. Deb., CXLI, 1923, PP. 397-398, 7 Aug,

'''"^14° George V. No. 25, sec 33.

Ibid., sec. 18, 25

Advocated by the Town Planning Association, the surveyor was to be afforded better scope in planning and utilizing

land to its greatest advantage. 79 Provisions were

included to fix the portion of a parcel of land which 80 could be covered by buildings.

Additional powers to make by-laws provided building requirements could be extended. The local authority could

set a building alignment. No one could construct or repair any part of a building between the old and new alignment.

O -j Repairs for reasonable preservation were allowed. The minimum area and frontage of lemd upon which any building could be erected was the privilege of the local authority.

Buildings fronting onto a lane could be prohibited and the 82 heights of erections could be controlled. A significant measure in the "Local Authorities Act

1923" was to initiate what became a continuing debate. To prevent people from being led into buying land liable to flooding, and to lov/er city expenses, the bill required the preparation of flood, contour, sewer and water mains plans and required works to be completed at the subdivider's

"^^Qld, Pari, Deb,, CXLI, 1923, Pp. 395-397, 7 Aug. ^°14). ° George V, No. 25, sec. 33. 81! "Ibid., sec. 18. Ibid., sec, 18. 26

expense. The requirements were to be completed before 83 the land was put for sale, Mr. F. T, Brennan, Home

Secretary, presented the following table based on 84 estates divided in Brisbane during I918-I923* Estate Average purchase price Average selling price £ per acre per acre (including land dedicated to roads)

A 6 47 B 5 113 c 24 50 (10') D 50 157 E 7k 125 F 125 393 G 149 208 H 131 209 I 36 100

He maintained that from profits such as these the subdividers could afford to bear the costs of such plans. Though wamed by the opposition that speculators would only pass the costs 85 on the purchasers, the govemment included the provxsxons. Controls over roads were further clarified by the 1923 bill. Roads were to be classified by the local authorities.

Minimum standard widths for the classes of roads were: principal (main) road - 80 feet; secondair road - 66 feet; residential road - 66 feet; lane - 22 feet; and pathways - 86 12 feet. The local authorities were to apply these

®\ld. Pari. Deb., Vol. CXLI, 1923, p. 396, 7 Aug. 84 Ibid.. table includes land dedicated to roads. ^^Ibid., p. 397

^^14° George V, No, 25, sec 15. 27

classifications where considering proposed roads for a

subdivision. Matters to consider in approving new roads

and the subdivision of land were definitely laid out.

They included the situations of a road, its drainage,

the character of constiniction required, and whether or

not kerbing, guttering, and footpaths were to be provided,

If the new road proposed was a lane, it was to be decided

whether or not it should be permitted.

Debate on the powers of the Minister, as designed by

the act, echoed past proceedings and indicated that the

Minister's final authority on alignments was still not

completely accepted. Appeals to Ministerial decisions

on proposed roads or subdivisions were to the Minister.

Mr. King (Logan) proposed an amendment, supported by the

local authorities conference, that appeals would instead 88 go to the Land Courts or the Supreme Court. In debate, before the amendment was defeated, Brennan again empha­

sized that matters of policy were for the govemment and questions of law would go to the court. Further, he pointed otit, that for the Minister to appoint a practical

^'^Ibid.. sec. 18

88 Qld. Pari. Deb. Vol. CXLI, 1923, PP. 562-563, 7 Aug, 28 person to hesLT the case saves both parties the costs of legal fees.

In section 18B of the act, local authorities were given power to undertak:e planning of new roads and subdivisions. Proceeds from lands in roads closed under such plans were to be paxd into the local ftind.9 0

Colonnading and realignment could be adopted to widen a road. Compensation was available when a building was constructed with a colonnade or was realigned.9 1

Cul-de-sacs were only to be permitted when the local authority granted an exception. By-laws could be passed regixlating the weight of loads or the use of vehicles 92 likely to injure roads.

Changes were affected in restimption procedures.

Improvements were exempted from payment of compensation if made to a property after notices had been issued.

Local authorities could rate properties which had been restomed and later leased. To obviate public criticism on land resumed tinder private agreements, if the amount of compensation exceeded £1,000 the agreement was to be

®^Ibid., pp. 56-563. ^°14° George V No. 19, sec 18.

^•'•Ibid.. sec, 18 92 Ibid,, sec. 18. 29 submitted to the Secretary for Public Lands. If he believed an unfair discrepancy existed, he could direct that the compensation be determined by the Land Court.9 3

A provision on rates allowed the local authority to levy a differential rate for farm lands in cities and towns not in demand for building sites or residential areas. At least one-half of the available area had to be annually cultivated or othei^ise used for the purpose of food production to qualify.9 4

The 1923 act was a first instalment of town planning powers for local authorities. It recognized the principle that planning was the function of local government. It provided a framework for I926 and 1928 subdivision and building-code ordinances. Though opposition at its passage termed the 1923 bill "drastic". Greenwood points out that, on the contrary, the Brisbane Cotmcil did not always use the powers fully or wisely.

The pattern for creating local government authorities in Queensland had been set in I878 and I879, By acts in these years, the Governor-in-Council could establish local

^-^Ibid,, sec I7.

^ Ibid., sec. 37. 30 government in any community without waiting for a favourable petition or consulting their wishes. Mr.

S. W. Griffith had intended that tmder the I878 Local

Authorities Act, the areas around Brisbane would be euxnexed to the central core as they became urbanized.

Instead, the Governor-in-Council applied the 1879

Divisional Boards Act and in 1880 divided the areas contiguous to Brisbane into 8 separate divisions.9 5

Rate-payers could, and did, still continue to petition to create new mtmicipalities. Queensland, lacking legislation demanding a minimtim area and/or revenue for new municipalities, developed many new

"petty" authorities. Rapid growth and subdivision of authorities led to the growth of 21 local authorities 96 in the Brisbane area by I89I. This extensive sub­ division of the area led to a complex of administrative problems. The necessity for co-operation led the municipalities and state govenunent to form Joint Local Authorities which dealt with transportation, health, power, water, and other such commtmity servxces.9 7

A growing inefficiency due to overlapping of all

^^Greenwood, 0£. cit,, pp. 249-250.

^ Ibid., pp. 251-262

^^Ibid., pp. 263-466, 31

government bodies was a result of the many contiguous 98 subdivisions in the Brxsbane Area. Local authorities

were granted more authority within their areas which

only served to emphasize suburban conflicts and a lack

of municipal conformity.

As early as I902, a form of amalgamation did begin.

Booroodabin was merged with Brisbane and the relevant

act included provisions for other suburbs to be annexed

to the central core. An opinion of the time favoured a

gradual extension of the city's boundaries as the urban

areas moved outwards. 99 Co-operation was not forthcoming

and early enthusiasts soon realized that a Greater

Brisbane could only be conceived by state action.

State Govemment action was initiated in 1915* In

the campaign of that year, the Labor leader, T. J, Ryan,

declared that his party would enlarge the areas of

local authorities. Labor won and began to implement

98 I Brewer, o£, cit,, p. 49. ^^Telegraph. 2 Dec, 1902, After Booroodabin it was proposed to include South Brisbane and Kangaroo Point, To have a competent committee over the several departments with ultimate control of a central body. 32

their policies. The first bill for the amalgamation

of Brisbane was a lengthy measure introduced in 1917.

Its purpose was served by focussing discussion relevant

to problems of amalgamation. Increasing pressure from problems arising from the ntimerous municipalities

continued the movement for uniting the city. Restrictions

on the issue of debentures and indebtedness limited

financially many desirable projects for the divisions.

There was a lack of conformity in alignments and sub­ division requirements. Zoning schemes for the regulation

of such as noxious and offensive trades became more imperative for the over-all area.

In October 1923, Assistant Home Secretary Brennan introduced a shortened version of the original Greater

Brisbane Bill. This measure was brought forward by the government only as a basis for argtiment on definitive 102 points. It moved to debate on the second reading.

Brewer, ££. cit., p. 49. Labor's initial amalgamations were the areas of Rockhampton, Townsville, Ipswich, Btmdaberg, and Toowoomba.

•'•^•'•Qld. Pari Deb. Vol CXXVIII, p. 3^76, 30 Nov. 1917.

•^°^Ibid., p. 3527, 3 Dec 1917. 33

The third, and successful, bill was initiated

in 1924. The provisions of the final draft were adopted

from materials amassed by the government, press, local

authorities conferences, town planning advocates and

members of Parliament.

The act included 2 cities, 6 towns, 10 shires and 103 parts of 2 others. They were to be tmited under a

single cotincil and services were to be transferred to central authorities. The area within a 5 mile radius of the General Post Office (80 sq. miles) had a rateable value of £14,413,000 and the area outside (285 sq. miles) had a rateable value of £1,609,000."^^

There was agreement to the general principles of the bill. Major objection was to the scope of operation.

The bill proposed a 10 mile radius instead of 5 miles as others desired. The Courier believed that it was too large an administrative step. The franchise was granted to all ratepayers in 1921 and the opposition charged that this was a move by the Labor government

103 The cities were Brisbane and South Brisbane; the towns w»re Hamilton, Ithaca, Toowong, Windsor, Sandgate, and Wynntim; and the shires were Balmoral, Belmont, Coorparoo, Enoggera, Kedron, Moggill, Sherwood, Stephens, Taringa, Toombul, and parts of Tingalpa and Yeerongpilly. 104^ .^ r-, ro Brewer og. cxt. pp 51-52. 34

to extend the area of their control. Discrimination

was implied by those who saw ratepayers in outside

areas (agrarian ratepayers) paying rates for works 105 which did not directly benefit them.

The Government continued to favour the advemtages

in the enlarged area. Town planning was facilitated

greatly by this decision. Arterial roads through the

outside areas could be best maintained by the larger

authority. A greater rateable value on the inner

areas would help finance these efforts. Uniformity

could come from the policies of the service authorities

and in planning. This would include control over

subdivision, noxious and offensive trades and reserves

and parks in the expanding mtmicipal area. General

community interest would also be more likely to develop

in the outer areas if they were involved in the greater 107 city. Differential rating was included as an adjust­ ment for rural areas. In section 36 of the "Greater Brisbane Act" the city was granted "...full power and duty to make ordinances...for the planning, development.

'''^^Telegraph. 5 Oct. 1924, Brisbane Courier. 17 Sept. 1924, Daily Mail, 17 Sept. 1924.

Brewer, 0£. cit., pp 51-52.

•'•^''Qld. Pari Deb., Vol. CXLIV, 1924, pp. 1152-1153, 26 Sept, 35

and embellishment of the City*,,," All ordinances

were to be approved by the Governor-in-Council, who

could also repeal any ordinance or part of an ordinance,

and Parliament had one month in which it could veto an 108 ordxnance.

With the creation of Greater Brisbane, pressure

continued for a systematic plan for the city. This led

to the appointment of Mr. W, J, Earle as the first full time planner in Australia and a town planning 109 department was created. The department began a civic survey in 1928 in preparation of a zoning scheme, reviewed subdivisions, suggested the establishment of new parks and recreation spaces and made recommendations on cross-rxver facilxtxes„ .,.,. . 110 Ordinances were passed in 1926 covering subdivision regulations and included a building code. The Council assumed power to design subdivisions, prepare town plan­ ning schemes and design garden suburbs and areas for private and public bodies. It could charge fees for these services. Plans were submitted for council approval

Greenwood, _o£. cit,, p. 464.

•"•^^Robinson, 0£. c^t., pp. 202-203

•"••"•^rewer, F.J. and Dtinn, R., The Brisbane Mimicipal Year Book, Brisbane: H. Pole & Co. Limited, 1928, p. 37* 36 by anyone wishing to open any road or subdivide land.

A minimtjm of 24 perches was required for every allotment tinless granted an exception by the Cotincil to presearve the amenity for a road or district, A minimum frontage 111 of 75 links was required for an allotment. The building code covered materials, specifications, space, , , . , . 112 and hexght.

The Council could require roads and streets to be a minimtmi of 40 feet in width. Roads could be required of Bubdividers parallel and adjacent to railways, emd, provisions were included to require the dedication of a road or reserve along rivers and creeks adjacent to a subdivision. There were to be intersections of new roads at least every 10 chains.11 3 These provisions were to continue until repealed in 1959.

An ordinance in 1928 gave the Council authority ll4 to declare residential districts. The Councxl then used this power to pass resolutions to control all land use. These provisions were to continue in use until 1955.•^''•^

•"••^•^Qld. Government Gazette, 1926, Vol, CXXVI pp 1069-1070, 20 Mar, 1926. 112Ibxd_ . ., -^Ibxd, •'••'•^Id. Government Gazette, 1929, Vol. CXXX, pp 974- 975, 3 Mar. •'"•'•^B.C.C. Minutes, 6 Dec 1932. 37

As mentioned, the city planner's functions included

cross-river bridge and road alignment proposals and the

conduct of a 1928 civic survey leading to the draft of

a zoning plan. The bridge aund road proposal included a

recommendation for the Grey Street Bridge and a system 11 6 of boulevards from Roma Street to New Farm. The

zoning plan, completed in 1929, was rejected by the

Moore govemment because it failed to include compen­

sation provision. The town planner was dismissed and

the town planning department abolished in 1931 in

administrative economy efforts during the 1930 depression

years.

Failure to fully utilize its existing town planning powers left Brisbane to continue to grow in its haphazard growth. The city seriously lagged in developing its natural assets for a more beautiful city. To

Mr. H.M. Russell (Hamilton) "Brisbane offered a very 117 shocking example" in respect to town development.

Mr, E. M. Hanlon, Home Secretary, concurred in asserting that the communication was there but that little had

] 1 6 Brewer, op. cit., p, 129,

•'••'•'^Qld, Pari. Deb., 193^, Vol. CLXVI, p. 89O, 23 Oct. 38 been done about zoning, removing noxious trades, suburb plgmning, beautification and improving transport 118 facilities. Little had been accomplished in civic improvements except planning a few arterial roads.

The financial stresses on the municipality during the depression years militated against planning. Most city representatives had become so immersed in finan­ cial tangles and unemployment questions that they had little time to devote to a subject like town planning which was not immediately productive of revenue. The only exceptions were beautification efforts financed 119 by the Unemployment Relief Fund to create employment.

Yet, procrastination was only to emphasize the increasing problems and inefficiency arising from the lack of a city scheme.

It was not Brisbane, however, but the City of

Mackay, which became the first Queensland municipality

•"^•"•^Ibid., p. 894,

•^•'-^B,C.C. Minutes, 9 Aug. 1935, a £100,000 beautifi- cation scheme was approved, B,C.C. Minutes 1 Sept. 1936, allocation of £50,000 Beautification Loan with £10,000 subsidy from Govemment. Included £54,000 for street and footpath improvements, £1,000 each for foreshore, improvements, Botanic Gardens, parks, and £3,000 for reserves. 39

to take action toward achieving legislation relating 120 to town planning. Mackay had completed a town

plan in 193^ in an effort to avoid the troubles of

other cities. The city did not have the requisite

legal backing for the undertaking, and thus, to

implement it, the City of Mackay and Other Town

Planning Schemes Approval Act of 193^* was passed as 121 a special act of Parliament. By the act, the

Minister could require a civic survey before the

preparation of the scheme. It was to consider the

existing conditions in relation to present and

potential uses and values of land in relation to

public services, utilities, and amenities. All

ordinances and the resultant plan were to have the

approval of the Governor-in-Cotmcil before going

into effect. This final authority by the government was considered vital because, firstly, it was only

through the government that the local authorities could get the finance necessary to carry out a plan and, secondly, once the govemment approved of a scheme.

Lack, 0£. cit., p. 385

Robinson, ££, cit., pp. 201-202 40

122 they also were to be botind by it.

The act was a general sketch of previous planning regulations. It repeated provisions such as the power

to limit the use and occupation of lands and buildings,

to limit their height and to regulate the size of parcels of land. Obnoxious industries could now be removed when they were an embarrassment to the city.

Consistent with earlier procedures, appeals on proposals for an area were considered public policy decisions and went to the Minister or his appointee whose decision was final. Resumptions or purchases of any land comprised in the scheme could proceed whether required immediately or not. To correct the error in Brisbane's abortive zoning attempt of 1929, compensation was provided for any persons injuriously affected by the bill. Recourse for compensation was the "Public Works Restamption Act" and for Brisbane, the "City of Brisbane Improvement

The bill, as indicated by its title, was extended to include town planning powers for all Queensland

•"•^^Qld. Pari. Deb., 193^, Vol. CLXVI, pp. 894-895, 23 Oct.

123 •'^Robinson, ££. cit. , p. 203, 41 mtmicipalities. The Brisbane City Charter already gave the city authority to malce town planning ordinances.

It was charged in Parliament that to include the city in this scheme would be to "whittle away" the charter powers. The Home Secretary dismissed this assertion by showing that it would not limit the Council's powers.

Section 38 of the City Charter said that once an ordinance was adopted by the Cotincil, it should be submitted for the Governor-in-Cotincil's approval. 124 This was the same procedure outlined in the act.

Any disputes about the City's town planning powers were dispelled by a provision of the'Local Government

Act 1936". Full town planning po^./ers were greinted to cities and towns subject to state government control through the Minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of the act. As in the 1934 Act, compensation due from the exercise of any town plan was covered by the "Public Works Resumption Act" and 1 ?6 the "City of Brisbane Improvement Act'.'

The 1936 act included the same provisions as the

•'•^ Ibid., p. 1006, 23 Oct. 125 Robinson, ££. cit., p. 203 -^^^Ibid. p. 204 42

"City of Mackay and Other Town Planning Schemes

Approval Act 1934". A civic survey was to be made before the scheme was prepared. After its preparation, the plan was to be placed open for inspection by the public for 3 months. Objections were to be received by the Council and the scheme was then to be forwarded to the Minister. Approval by the Govemor-in-Council would give the scheme the effect of law. '

Brisbane had already resumed work on a town plan, for in 1935 a Town Planning Committee had been estab­ lished. Its function was to report to the Council on:

1. All matters connected with the preparation of the town planning scheme. 2. All proposed subdivisions of land. 3. Establishment of industries, manufactures, shops, and places of public amusement. 4. Adve r t i s ing ho ardings. 5. Establishment of new parks, recreation reserves, and open spaces. 6. Use and occupation of lo\\r-lying lands. 7. Any road or street extension or widening scheme. 8. Use and occupation of river or tidal water frontages, 9. Schemes for the embellishment of the city and to devise and submit such schemes. 10. Establishment of cross-river facilities, erection of structures on public highways, including petrol ptamps. 11. Making or variation of Ordinances dealing with matters allotted to the Committee. 12. Periodical requirements of capital loans and expenditure generally. , pr> 13* Annual estimates and requirements.

127^0 QgQj^gg VI No. 1, Sec. 33' •"•^^B.CC. Minutes, 24 Sept. 1935. h3

Work on a civic suirvey for a town plan was begun in

1935. Reports from the Town Planning Committee began to be received by the Cotincil by the latter part of the year. An Aerial Survey was tmdertaken in August.

By August 1937 the then Health and Town Planning

Committee reported on a preliminary draft of a zoning 131 plan prepared by the city planner. When completed in May 1939, the survey covered a total area of 375 square miles and included a population of 325,000.

During the next few years little work was done on the town plan. World War II caused all available services to be requisitioned for defence purposes. An overcrowded city, tinder-staffed mtmicipal services and shortage of materials brought civic development in Brisbane to a TOO standstill. As the end of the war approached in 1944 a plan became more essential, for it was realized that costly and irreparable errors would result from the post-war boom tinless a plan existed.13 3 The first effort in a planned series of successive stages in town planning was a zoning scheme adopted by

•"•^^B.C.C. Minutes, 2 Oct, 1935. •"•^S.C.C. Minutes, 3 Aug. 1935. •'•^•'•B.C.C. Minutes, 3 Aug. 1937. •"•^^Courier Mail. 10 May 1944. •"•^^Ibid, 17 Feb. 1944. 44

the Council in February 1944. It divided the city

into 9 zones: three types of residential, three types of

industrial, two types of business, and a rural zone.

Each zone was classed by: things which might be done

without a zoning permit; uses which might be permitted

by the Council; uses which must also first be advertised 134 for objections; and uses which might not be permitted.

As required by law it was open for public inspection

and the submission of objections.

One of the most significant proposals in the scheme was a new concept being applied to the development of

Brisbane, a green belt. This was a planning concept which had been employed with such cities as Berlin,

Hamburg, Vienna, Paris, and Greater London, The principle was to surround a city with a "green belt" of open

cotintry. This was to be a defined belt with land uses limited to recreation, agriculture, or sizeable estates.

The belt would restrict the outward growth of the city and prevent ribbon development along main arterial roads.

Restricting the spread of population would lower costs of

•"•^^cf. Table III, 45 extending services such as transport and sewerage to 135 outer areas. The belt would provide easily accessible recreation preserves close to the city population and its open character would serve as a "lung" for the densely settled centre. When the city area within the green belt was fully utilized, a series of satellite cities were to be constmicted on the outside of the belt. These cities would be self contained mtmicipalities yet have a close 136 community interest with the city and greater area.

The zoning scheme established an edge arotind the city. The green belt was to encompass all land one mile outside that edge. The minimtim allotment size would be 2^ acres. Council-owned land in the belt included reserves at Mt, Coot-tha, Mt. Gravatt, White's

Hill and Marchant Park. Premature and poorly planned subdivisions had left lands unsold and these had reverted 137 to the Cotincil for arrears in pa3niient of rates. In areas outside the green belt the Council would try to limit the effects of ribbon development by preventing the erection of buildings within 200 feet of the frontage

"^-^^Memo from City Planner McKinnis to B.C.C. on Town Planning Scheme, l4 Feb, 1944. •'•-^Report by Director of Local Government on General Town Planning Scheme, 1954, Part. Ill, Sec. XI. 137 B.C.C, minutes, 15 Feb. 1944. 46

1 '^8 of such land to the main or arterial road. Population

within the city was to reach a maximtim of 500,000 persons

and 5 satellite cities of 100,000 were proposed bringing

the total area population to 1,000,000 persons.

A traffic plan submitted with the planning proposals

consisted of 3 circtimferential roads and improvements on

existing traffic problem points. An inner circtimferential

road was a quick route for commercial traffic and to

prevent congestion in the centre of the city. Estimated costs for road work and resumptions necessary to form the inner road were £85,000,13 9 An intermediate road was to lie on the fringes of the outer suburbs and provide quick inter-suburb transport. The outer road would be in more or less rural districts and would provide direct route from these and cotintry areas to the city. Suggested improvements included a road under the north of Victoria

Bridge so through traffic to Queen Street could be diverted. The Brisbane Council adopted this planning scheme on 29 February 1944, and, as required by the act of 1936, advertised the scheme and called for objections.

Ibxd.

••-^^B.C.C, Minutes, 29 Feb. 1944.

-"-^^Ccurler Mail, 7 Sept. 1944, 47

The plans were open for public inspection for the required 3 months and on 5 Jtine the time was extended by a further 3 months.

Many of the objections to the principle of the plan were related to the green belt. The Bureau of

Industry Director, Mr. Colin Clark, pointed out that the whole concept of a green belt and satellite towns was £in attempt to solve the peculiar problems of London and doubted whether it was applicable to Brisbane conditions.

He continued by saying decentralization should be an effort in Queensland and the idea of a Brisbane population of 1,000,000 was only misplaced civic pride or the wish l4l by those in power to make money on land values. The

Lord Mayor, Mr. Chandler, admitted that it would be a

"discomfort" to people in the proposed green belt when l42 they couldn't closely subdivide their land. The only organization to object to the proposal, the Brisbane

Division of the Institute of Engineers, opposed the fixing of the city's boundaries and the satellite towns 143 envisioned in the scheme. ^ To the Telegraph there

•"•^•^Ibid, 17 Feb. 1944. •'•^^Telegraph. 29 Feb. 1944.

•'•^^Cotirier Mail, 5 Sept, 1944. 48

was a greater need for development and beautification

"of our meagre parklands and gardens" within the city

than creation of an outside green belt.14 4 Mr. Clem

Jones, a city surveyor, charged that the traffic plan

was a purely theoretical "pretty" design prepared in a

drafting office with no regard for the existing iZtt, conditions and topography of the city.

To bring it to finality, the scheme, with the

objections and council's recommendations, should have

been submitted for consideration and approval by the

Governor-in-Cotincil, The Cotincil, however, did not

forward the scheme but kept it tmder consideration and

purported to alter it from time-to-time by transferring

lemd from one zone to another by simple resolution of

the Cotmcil. Under the 1936 Act the Cotmcil did not have this power to make any such alterations and the 146 alterations were of no legal effect. Control of land use and development continued to be by Cotincil ordinances and resolutions. Chapter 35 of the ordinances passed in

1928 gave the City Cotincil the power to declare

-'^^^Telegraph 17 Feb. 1944.

•^^Courier Mail. 22 May 1944. Report by Director of Local Government, 1954, a£. cit., Part II, Sec. I. 49

residential districts, and the Cotincil proceeded to use

this power and declared all areas not previously in use,

or where there were residential buildings, as residential,

All industries were then prohibited in these areas, but

the City Cotmcil could determine exemptions to this

prohibition by resolution,l4 '7

In 1940, administration of this chapter and chapter

8 dealing with land subdivision controls was placed

tinder the authority of the City Council Registration

Board. The Board, which comprised the Deputy Town

Clerk, the City Solicitor, and the Manager of the

Department of Works, was established as a non-political administrator of the Council's policy. Control of land use and development granted by the ordinances and resolutions was thereby in the hands of the

Registration Board. There were no appeals from the l48 decisions of the Board. The Registration Board proceeded to use the 1944 zoning proposals as a guide

B.C.C, Minutes, 6 Dec 1932. The resolution was worded: "...All parcels of land which are now vacant or upon which there now are residential buildings (which term includes a combined shop or dwelling) shall be a residential district or districts in terms of Chapter 35 of the Ordinances,..The erection in such district or districts (residential districts) of industrial businesses is prohibited subject to such exemptions as may hereafter be determined by resolution of the City Council."

•"•^^Qld. Govt. Gazette, 1940, Vol CXIV, p. 1035. 1 Mar, 50 for granting site use applications through the scheme had not been approved by the Governor-in-Cotmcil as the law required. Through its powers over the subdivision of lands, the Board established standards required for the approval of applications. The Town Clerk, Mr. J,C.

Slaughter, devised a system whereby the costs of developing each proposed subdivision were estimated by the Cotmcil and works including roads and water and sewerage reticulation were required up to the amount which would allow the developer a 30^ return on his investment. l49 Appeals by writ against what was felt to be particularly onerous conditions imposed by the

Cotmcil established certain principles, e.g., the

Council could not require a higher standard of works from a developer than existed immediately adjacent to the proposed^ subdxvxsxonv.^- • • . 150 The state government asstiraed control of traffic in the "Traffic Act of 1949". "^ By this act, the govemment asstimed all power to grant licences and make all traffic regulations. The City Council was specifically

••-^^Interview with Mr, J.C Slaughter, Town Clerk of Brisbane, July I967.

Idem.

^^-••13° George VI, No. 26.

•^^^Ibid., Sections 4 and 70. 51

denied the power to make ordinances concerning traffic

regulation or "perform any traffic function of the

state".•'•^^

In 1947 Mr. F. Costello was employed by the Cotincil

to redesign the 1944 zoning scheme. Various changes had

been made by resolutions to the scheme but it was now

left for Mr. Costello to update the plan. Following

the completion of initial surveys the Council decided to

table the plan on 6 December 1944 and the planning

officers were instructed to prepare a report to go to various organizations and be available for inspection 154 by persons interested in the scheme. Meetings were

then planned in which such persons could present their views and objections.15 5

The report on the plan was submitted in January

1950* 156 The proposed green belt was now to have minimtmi allotments of ten acres and be a series of wedges reaching into the city. Large satellite cities were to provide industry and extensive services and be

•'•^^Ibid., Sec. l4.

""•^ B.C.C, Minutes, 13 Dec 1949.

^^B.C.C, Officers Planning Committee Minutes, 16DEC, 1949. •'•^^Costello, F,G., "City of Brisbane Town Plan Report", Jan. 1950, 52

surrounded by smaller ones of about five htandred

families seirviced by a local school and limited shopping 157 facilities. Over seventy-five square miles (75.75 sq. miles) of the total mtmicipal area would comprise the main urban area, ninety-two and one half square miles

(92.5 sq. miles) would be the total urban area, and the

rest was to be zoned rural.

The report and first sections of the scheme were forwarded to the Town Plemning Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Engineers, and the Real Estate Institute. 159 These groups then met with the City Cotmcil committee to discuss the plan.

At the first meeting, representatives from the Chamber of Manufactures, the Institute of Engineers, the Institute of Surveyors, and the Town Planning Association questioned the feasibility and advisability of limiting the city's population. Mr. Clem Jones, speaking for the Institute of Surveyors indicated that one of the disadvantages of

^'Ibid., The larger satellite cities included the areas of Sandgate-Shorncliffe, Wynntim-Manly and Lota, Darra, Geebung-Zillmere, Servicton-Simnybank. Smaller ones were to be Aspley, Upper Mt. Gravatt, Kenmore, Tingalpa,

•"•^^Courier Mail, 19 May, 1950, 53

the green belt would be to limit the purchaseable areas

in the city thus precipitating a scarcity of land and

corresponding inflation of allotment prices. It would more likely become an iron ring to strangulate the .^ 160 cxty.

A second meeting was held in September 1952 between

Lord Mayor J. B, Chandler and the Town Clerk and delegates

from the Institute of Engineers, the Institute of Archi­

tects, the Institute of Surveyors, the Town Planning

Association, the Real Estate Institute, the Royal

Automobile Club of Queensland, the Cotincil of Progress

Associations the Chamber of Manufactures, and the

Chamber of Commerce. At this meeting, there were a few criticisms of minor points in the plan and comments

that the green belt was "harsh", but the delegates then tinanimously passed a resolution agreeing with the principle of the proposed green belt and supported the

Cotincil's intent to submit it as a first part of a town 1 61 planning scheme. Three weeks later, Mr, M.D, Davies,

President of the Chamber of Manufactures, apologized

•'•Report to City Cotmcil by Officer's Planning Committee, 19 July 1950. •^Minutes of Special Meeting on Town Plan, 5 Sept. 1950. 54

to Mr. Costello after the planner had addressed a poorly

attended meeting with the Chamber. Ina letter he credited

the lack of attendance as an indication that the majority

of manufacturers were satisfied with the proposals.

In 1952 the city's elected administration changed

from Sir John Chandler, who had held office since 1940,

to Mr. F. Roberts, leader of a Labor Cotm.cil. Roberts was confronted with a nearly completed town planning

scheme which had been in preparation since 1935. One of his first actions on the town plan was to approach the Minister for Local Govemment, Mr. E. Walsh, and

•1 /To explain the legal plight of the Cotmcil. The scheme had been legally commenced in 1935, exhibited for objections andadopted by the Cotmcil in 1944, but had not then been forwarded to the government as the law required. Instead, the Cotmcil had periodically amended the scheme by resolutions not provided for by law. The revised scheme completed in 1952 was therefore based on many invalid Cotmcil resolutions. Since the plan being prepared had not been drafted in accordance with the law

Letter to Mr. F. Costello from Mr. M.D. Davies, 27 Sept. 1950,

Interview with Mr. E. Walsh, August I967. 55

the government had two ways to enable the City Cotincil to present a legal town planning scheme. It could either refuse to accept the 1944 scheme and the Cotmcil could start the planning procedure anew, or it could pass an act validating the irregular preparation of the present scheme.

The Minister chose to validate the existing proposed plain. The relevant act repeated the procedures for 164 approval of the town plan outlined in previous acts.

It went further to grant the right of appeal to the

Minister to anyone dissatisfied with the requirements or decisions of the Council under a town planning scheme. 165 The Minister's decision was to be final. Additional provisions in the act granted the City Cotmcil power to redevelop areas tinder a town plan scheme by acquiring any land needed for the scheme (whether required immediately or not) and including any land which was being used for ] 66 a purpose inconsistent with the scheme. No compensation was to be paid for damage to a property or business if it had not received prior Cotincil approval. The Opposition

Leader, Mr, F. Nicklin, offered an amendment that

•'' 1° Elizabeth II., No. 52, sec 3 Ibid., sec. 4. 166^.,.Ibxd,. 'Ibxd. 5^ planning appeals be to the State Supreme Court instead of to the Minister to eliminate possible political influence. The government maintained that such decisions were matters of policy and should be made by elected officials. Further, he stated that the Minister was bound by the necessity to take certain things into consideration and if he didn't the appellant could use the courts for his protection. The amendment was rejected by the government.

The scheme was placed on display in November 1952.

Objections were received and the period of inspection ended after the required 90 days despite requests by the

Chamber of Coimnerce and the Chamber of Manufactures for an extension of review time. The Cotmcil then proceeded to review the objections and submit its recommendation on them.

The scheme had been based on six principles. The city's population was to be retained in a relatively compact area. Land was to be made available by opening residential zones for development for a maximtim

•"•^^Qld. Pari. Deb., Vol, CCV, 1952, p. 1700, 3 Dec. 57 population of 750,000 in twenty years time. Town Planning

Ordinances were to be freiraed to give the widest practicable range of discretion to the Cotincil in the control of future development and in exempting uses of land differing from a particular zone. The zone map was to be reviewed at the end of twenty years. The plan was only to serve as a general guide and not be a definite commitment. It would allow the Council to complete the details of the plan with wide discretionary powers. 169

The scheme classified land into ten different zones.

These were: (a) residential, (b) restricted residential,

(3) central city, (4) local business, (5) industrial,

(6) open space reservations, (7) special uses, (8) railway 170 land, (9) green belt, and, (lO) rural. Potential land use in these zones fell into three categories: (l) a use that could be made without requiring a Cotmcil permit,

(2) uses that could only be made with a town planning permit greuited by the Council, and (3) a use which was 171 absolutely prohibited. ' The only uses included in

^Report by Director of Local Government on General Scheme (Totvn Plan of Brisbane), 1954, paragraphs l4 &. 27

Ibid., para 12. 58

the first category, however, were the erection of a dwelling house in a residential zone, the maintenance

of existing railway facilities and agricultural uses in

the green belt and rural zones. 172 The plan also included a road plan. 173

A total of 685 objections to the plan were received.

Almost half of the objections were against land being placed in zones not permitting its existing use. One- third of the objections were related to the green belt and rural zone. These included objections against the minimtim size of subdivisions in each of the zones and the prevention of industrial or normal residential uses 174 in the green belt. Forty-five general and comprehensive objections were received - mainly from professional institutes.17 5 The Queensland branch of the Australian

Planning Institute objected to the lack of specificity in the plan. ' Sir Leon Trout, Vice President of the

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, requested that legislation be passed making appeals from the provisions of the plan

172 Ibid., paragraph 12. 173 Ibid., paragraph 13. 174 Ibid., paragraph 17*

•^"^^Courier Mail, 28 Mar. 1953. 59

to the Supreme Court, rather than to the Minister.

The Institute of Architects submitted a proposal for

constructing a commission comprised of commtmity "experts"

to administer the plan instead of the City Cotmcil.

The objections were first considered by the Cotmcil's

Officers' Planning Committee who forwarded their recommen­

dations to the CotJncil's executive, the Establishment and 179 Co-ordination Committee. Members of the Officers' Planning Committee were the Town Clerk and the heads of

all Cotmcil Departments. The Establishment and Co-ordin­ ation Committee included the Lord Mayor and aldermen who were chairmen of the Cotincil's standing committees. The

only amendments recommended by these bodies were minor

singular changes in zoning and a provision that the

Minister for Local Govemment appoint a tribtinal comprised of the State Co-ordinator-General, the State Surveyor-General and the University of Queensland Professor of Architecture to hear and determine appeals against the Council's town 18r) planning decisions. The plan and recommended amend­ ments were adopted by the City Cotmcil on 6 October 1953

•'•'^'^Courier Mail. 26 Mar. 1953.

Report, ££. cit,, paragraph 35.

•'•''^Courier Mail. 26 Mar, 1953

-••^^3,0,0. Minutes, 6 Oct. 1953. 60

l8l and subsequently forwarded to the state government.

The plan was received by the Minister responsible for Local Government, Mr. E. Walsh, State Treasurer. Neither Mr. Walsh nor any one of the Local Goverrmient Department had any training in town planning. The plan appeared to him to be no more than "just a big board of 1 Q p colours". Most of his time was occupied with the

Treasury portfolio and town planning didn't seem to him to be important enough to spend much time on.

He decided to relieve the Director of Local Government,

Mr. J. Sewell, for three months to review and report on the plan. Later Mr. S, L, Quinn, retired former head of the Brisbane City Cotmcil Department of Transport 184 was invited to assist Mr. Sewell. Mr. Sewell presented his report in August 1954. His criticisms of the plan were that:

(1) The plan was based on incomplete information. The City Council had failed to conduct a comprehensive and up-to-date civic survey.

(2) The City Cotmcil prepared the scheme before fixing the pattern of the road system. To Sewell, the road system was the "skeleton" on which the frame­ work of the scheme was to be built emd the converse had been achieved in the plan.

•^^•''B.C.C, Minutes, 6 Oct, 1953. IS^Intervlev with Mr. E. Walsh, August 196?. -^Idem. Idem. 61

(3) The scheme lacked detail. Permits were still necessary for site use and there was not enough detail to enable a property owner to ascertain whether permission for his use would be granted or not. (4) Insufficient attention was given to the city's potential commercial needs. (5) Provisions for industrial purposes were totally inadequate. (6) The green belt zone was an unrealistic idea. It was wasteful of areas of high potential value, calculated to increase the cost of essential services, unfair to private land owners in the zone, and not considered to be in the best interests of the development of the city. (7) The development of satellite suburbs outside the perimeter of the green belt zone was unsotmd and tine c onomi c . (8) There were no provisions to relocate the city markets in a more suitable site. (9) No provision was made for planning the southern bank of the Brisbane River below the graving dock. (10) No provisions were made to replace certain substandard areas. Power for redevelopment had been granted in the 1952 Brisbane Town Plan Act.185

Mr. Sewell concluded the report by recommending that because of the above deficiencies the plan should be rejected and the Cotincil be required to prepare a new scheme. The new plan could be prepared by an Advisory

Committee and include representatives from the commtmity outside the City Cotmcil and government. It should be

Report, ££. cit., paragraph ll4. 62 freed from exercising the needs of day-to-day planning and concentrate on preparation of the plan itself.

The plan would need a comprehensive civic survey and should be preceded by and based on a road scheme for the city. Land not required for immediate use could be held in a restricted zone and land use specified as far as possible to keep required permits to a minimum.

Finally, there should be some degree of detailed planning or a town plan would only be a continuation of existing day-to-day planning changing with each new admxnxstratxon, . . ^ 4-- . 186

Ibid., paragraphs 114-124. 63

CHAPTER II

INITIATION OF THE BRISBANE TOWN PLAN

For the govemment to amend or return the plan to the City Council to be redrafted would involve it in the processing of town planning. A town plan scheme imposed on a growing city with its existing uses and problems would create two socio-economic problems.

In the first place, many people would be required to alter old practices and plans and accept a new pattern of development. Persons maintaining industries in zones by which the plan now aimed to restrict manu­ facturing would be concerned about future expansion rights and the continuation of services essential to the industry. The restriction of development imposed by the principle of containing the city's population would impair the plans of land developers. The green belt precluded many proposed subdivisions. Ring roads and new traffic accesses in the proposed road plan 64 entailed a ntimber of restimptions. Householders, not confident of adequate compensation and not wishing to leave their homes and neighbourhood, would be affected. Each change could create disaffection to the town plan and the state govemment was concerned that it might be held the authority responsible if the scheme was tinpopular.

Secondly, compensation required in the implementa­ tion of the plan would involve large sums. The road scheme involved numerous restimptions. Compensation was to be available for owners of land in the open spaces zone. The government would be responsible for providing ftmds for a portion of these costs. As any government, the state government had limited financial resources.

It could determine the allocation of its funds only within these limits. Finances are allocated to those social needs which the government deems the most urgent whether the urgency be created by the demands of the social need itself or by the influence of actors in the polity.

No representations were made to the Minister by the City Cotmcil or from the commtmity urging action on the town plan immediately after Mr. Sewell's report was 65

1 Pt'y submitted. Neither did the tra.ffic scheme and its accompanying high costs seem necessary at the time. The government did not foresee the great increase in auto­ mobile traffic which was soon to crowd the city's streets. To the government, the roads seemed adequate for the existing voltime of traffic. Occasional warnings stressing the need for traffic planning in Brisbane were tendered by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, but no effective effort was latinched to either convince or influence the government to act in achieving a road scheme. Furthermore, it did not seem wise to the government to launch into an expensive traffic scheme 189 when 40% of the city was still not sewered.'

The government was tincertain of the effects the plan would have if it was enacted. Any town planning scheme involved large expenditure. Any need for the scheme did not appear urgent enough to require immediate action in relation to the inherent political risks and financial commitments, nor was the absence of a town plan likely to become a significant issue in state

Interview with Mr, E. Walsh, Minister for Local Government in 1953, Jtine I967. 1 00 Cf. Appendix III. "interview with Mr. J. Sewell, Director of the Department of Local Government in 1954, July I967. 66

190 elections. The government chose, instead, to avoid the consequences of a town plan by delaying a decision on the proposal.

Town planning matters continued to be administered tinder the ordinances by the City Cotmcil's Registration

Board employing the 1944 and 1953 proposed zoning schemes as guidelines for allowing site use permits.19 1

Town planning principles, current at the time, were also 192 used. Developers were compelled to agree to various conditions required by the Council tmder the threat of a refusal or delay in granting permits, and there were no provisions for appeal against conditions imposed by the Registration Board.

The system of development control provided opporttm- ities for several individuals to influence Registration

Board decisions. Because there was no binding statutory policy for allowing site use permits, the Registration

Board had wide discretionary powers. It had been established to be an impartial administrator of Cotmcil policies, but members of the Board were Cotincil employees.

190 Interview with Mr. E. i/alsh. ° Interview with Mr. J.E. Pickersgill, Head of the Brisbane City Council Planning and Building Department, Jtme, 1967. 192T-, Idem, 67

appointed to their positions by the Cotmcil, and according to one senior Council officer, "to believe the registration board, hired by politicians, would be non-political was wishful thinlcing".19 3 City Aldermen, the Lord Mayor and the Town Clerk were all able to influence Registration Board decisions.19 4 On two known occasions, the Board reversed previous decisions after receiving representations from the Local Government

Minister.19 5 Cotincil opposition parties could also influence Board decisions, for they were always potential 196 employers as a result of the next elections.

This method of dealing with site-use and building permit applications led to occasional charges of corruption. The writer was cited examples in the course of interviews with three separate persons, when it was alleged that money was demanded for approval of an application. These demands were reported to have been made by anonymous telephone callers and no indication was given as to who would receive the money.

•'•^^Idem.

° Interviews with Sir Reginald Groom, Head of the Brisbane City Cotmcil Planning and Building Department, June 1967. "^Interview with Mr. E. Walsh.

° Interview with Sir Reginald Groom. 68

The issue of interference in Registration Board

decisions was mentioned in the 1955 City Cotincil

election campaign. The candidate for the Citizen's

Municipal Organization, Mr, T. R. Groom, stated that

absolute impartiality must be observed in Cotmcil deal­

ings and "decisions.,.should not depend on politics or

personal favouritism".19 7 He further promised that if

elected he would begin restaffing the City Cotmcil 198 Planning Department. The majority party, the

Mtmicipal Labor Party, was divided in a dispute on

another issue between its aldermen, and the party

executive and Groom won the election easily.

Most of the city planning staff had been released

by the Roberts' administration after the zoning scheme was fomirarded to the government in 1953* Planning work

had then become a process of dealing with site approvals

and building applications. Ty:e newly-elected Groom

administration began to restaff and rebuild the city

planning department.19 9

City Cotincil interference in the granting of

•^^^Courier Mail, 5 April 1955- 198. Ibid. 199 Courier Mail. 23 Jtme 1955. 69

site-use applications led to a High Court ruling in 1956

which invalidated the Council's previous controls over

the development of land by Chapter 35 of the Ordinances.

In 1951 a Mr. Vitosh bought a parcel of subdivided land

in an area declared as a residential district by a 1939

City Cotmcil resolution. He then applied to the Regis­

tration Board to erect certain buildings on his land.

Because of a previous disagreement with Vitosh, an

alderman had the Board delay its decision on the applic­

ation. Lord Mayor Groom was finally approached on the

matter and tmder his influence the Board made its 201 decision, but it rejected the application. Vitosh

immediately sought a prerogative writ of mandamus to

allow use of his land as he had planned. The case was 202 finally appealed to the High Court.

The High Court ruled that as the City of Brisbane

Act granted the Cotincil power to declare a defined part

of the city to be residential it must do so by defining

those parts by "metes and botinds or by streets or some 203 other sufficient topographical description "

200Vitos h V. B.C.C. (1956) St, R, Qld. 283, 201 Interview with Sir Reginald Groom. 20 'Vitosh V. B,C .C ., op. cit.

203^.,.-^Ibxd,. 70

Cotincil resolutions used the criterion of the existence

or non-existence of buildings on the land in declaring

such areas. To the Court, this was a different type of

discretionary power than had been bestowed by the 204 ordxnances. The decision negatived the Cotmcil's

control of land development and site-use. The Cotincil

immediately began to redraft the ordinances to make them 20^^ valid by the definition by the Court.

In February 1956, the Minister for Local Govemment

and the Lord Mayor met to discuss the plan. At the

meeting, Mr. Walsh proposed the establishment of a joint

co-ordinating committee composed of representatives of

both the state govemment and the City Council. The

committee would be given legislative powers to make

zoning decisions which were then the function of the

Cotmcil's Registration Board. The decisions of the

committee would be subject to the Minister's veto.

Departments of the state govemment would be expected to

inform the proposed co-ordinating committee of their

requirements for services in a particular locality and

204_ . , Ibxd,

Interview with Mr, L. O'Brien, Brisbane City Council Solicitor, May I967. 71

this information could be taken into account in making ?o6 zoning decisions. Contrary to conjecture in the city

newspapers, Mr. Walsh did not intend this committee as a 207 foretoken of a state planning authority.

The Lord Mayor, however, saw the committee as an

attempt to erode the powers of the City Council. In a

letter to Mr. Walsh following their meeting, he explained,

"there can be no suggestion that the City Cotmcil would

surrender its right to continue the City's development.

Ministerial veto would do that". He did favour a

committee to help co-ordinate state works programs with

the City Cotincil planning authorities. The committee,*

as he envisioned it, would submit its proposals to state

cabinet whose approval would be binding on the

departments concerned.

After this proposal, neither the Council nor the

Gair govemment made any further efforts to establish a

committee or town plan. Other matters came to demand

the government's attention. In 1956 and 1957, a split developed in the Queensland branch of the Australian

Labor Party, the government party. The minister found

^^^Courier Mail, 17 Feb. 1956, ^^^Interview with Mr. E. ¥alsh. 208 Courier Mail. 17 Feb. 1956. 209'ibid- . 72 he had little time left for "things like town planning" as he became involved in the division which eventually 210 led to the downfall of the govemment.

The succeeding government, led by Mr. G. F. R. Nicklin, created a new cabinet post by combining the Public Works

Department and Local Government Department. Mr. E. J.

Heading (Cotintry Party, Marodian) was selected as Minister of the new position. The Local Govemment Department

Director, Mr. Sewell, brought the situation of the Brisbane

Town Plan to the Minister's attention soon after he asstimed the portfolio.21 1 Mr. Heading felt he was too old to begin learning about such things as town planning and referred 212 the matter back to Mr. Sewell.

By 1957, a rapidly increasing voltirae of traffic on

Brisbane's streets was becoming a major problem which was most acute in the central city area. The Council and government employed such palliatives as installing parking meters and creating one-way streets, but the Lord Mayor and the Town Clerk, Mr, Slaughter, were convinced that the 213 city needed an immediate road works scheme, A road

210 Interview with Mr. E, Walsh. ^-'-•'-Qld, Pari. Deb,, 1959, Vol. CCX5CIII, p, 2897, 24 Mar. 212-rIbxd, . ., -^Interview with Sir Reginald Groom. 73

scheme would require govemment co-operation in financ­

ing and in gaining the necessary cabinet approval.

The absence of a town plan involved the Cotincil in

a ntimber of expensive court appeals on land-use controls.

A statutory plan and supporting legislation could regul­

arize conditions for approvals being required by the

Council. This could eliminate many expensive hearings 2l4 and speed the application procedure. Groom and

Slaughter also wanted powers to redevelop certain

sections in the city which were declining. Statutory Land-use controls and redevelopment pov^ers required Governor-in-Council approval and state government

legislation.21 5

The two leading figures in Brisbane local government had now become convinced that a town plan was necessary

for Brisbeine. The plan could include a road scheme and

planning legislation aind could secure government co­

operation in financing the road scheme anddeveloping the

city. They believed that lack of government co-operation was the reason behind the failure of previous planning

attempts. Hence, the best means of guaranteeing

2l4 Idem, "'idem. 74

government co-operation would be to have the government

represented and involved in the preparation of a new

scheme. Groom and Slatighter discussed the means necessarT" to achieve a town plan with Heading and

Sewell11 . 216

As mentioned, the existing ordinances and absence of

a town plan gave the City Council wide discretionary powers. Exercise of these powers adversely affected members of the community. Prospective developers found

their plans for subdividing thwarted by the proposed 217 green belt. Manufacturers could not be certain that plans to expand their industries or sites would be approved, for all such extensions were at the discretion pn O of the Council. Developers objected to conditions required by the City Council before subdivision applic- 219 ations would be approved. A ntimber of these disaffected persons approached the new govemment with complaints about the City Cotincil's practices and use of its wide discretionary powers in land-use controls

^"'" Idem, and Courier Mail. 28 Aug. 1958. 'Interview with Sir Reginald Groom. p-l o Interview with Mr. L. Suggars, General Manager of Chamber of Manufactures, May 1967. "interviews with Sir Reginald Groom and Mr. J. Slaughter. 75

and requested legislation to delineate the Cotmcil's 220 powers.

Both the City Cotmcil and individuals in the commtm­

ity had now approached the government indicating that

they wanted legislation on town planning matters.

Heading favoured the enactment of a statutory plan to

get the matter decided, but the government had to answer 221 two questions before it could act. First, it needed

to decide whether it was going to accept, alter or

reject the zoning and road schemes submitted in 1953.

If this scheme was rejected the government then needed

to decide how it would complete a plan.

By August, 1958, the Minister was convinced that

the proposed plan, at the least, needed to be redrafted

and he offered the Cotmcil the serw^ices of his department 222 to assist in the task. Later in the month he announ­

ced the appointment of the Local Government Department

Director, Mr. Sewell, the Brisbane Town Clerk, Mr.

Slaughter, and the University of Queensland's Professor

of Architecture, Mr. R. Curamings to a committee to

220 Interview with Mr. J. Sewell, Correspondence with Sir James Heading, former Minister for Local Govemment, 9 Oct. I967.

^^^Courier Mail. 5 Aug. 1958. 76 examine the proposed scheme and recommend what they saw 223 as the best means to achieve a town plan. The conmiittee could either reconmiend accepting the old scheme or the preparation of a new plan. If they favoured accepting the existing proposed scheme, then the question was, would it be necessary to amend it or could it be accepted as proposed? If they recommended the preparation of a new plan they were to propose the authority to prepare the plan and what financial 224 arrangements would be required. The committee concluded its review by November,

1958. On 25 November, the government presented its report on the committee's recommendations to the City

Cotmcil. The recommendations were: (1) The Governor-in-Cotmcil should not approve the proposed plan with amendments, (2) It was not feasible to amend, add, alter or modify the scheme to make it acceptable. (3) Certain surveys (outlined in an appendix) were necessary for the preparation of a plan. (4) A committee of 3-5 men should prepare the plan. This committee should have one representative from the government, one nominated by the University of Queensland Senate and one to three representatives from the City Cotmcil of Brisbane.

^^^Ibid., 28 Aug. 1958,

^^^Itaid., 17 Sept. 1958. 77

(5) The committee should seek the advice of government departments and members of the community. (6) The committee should consider and employ the staff necessary for the tindertaking. (7) The government should provide a 20^ subsidy. (8) The scheme should be prepared within eighteen months. (9) The scheme should be administered by the Brisbane City Council. (10) There should be a liaison between the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Cotmcil."^^5

There had been several proposals on what type of authority should prepare a town plan. Sewell had previously recommended in his 1954 report, that the plan be prepared by an Advisory Committee which would include representatives 226 _ , of the commtmity outside of the City Cotincil. I. Wood (Mackay) proposed that one experienced planner should be hired to fonn the plan rathei' than a committee.

He believed that this would be a cheaper, quicker and more 227 efficient means to get a town plan than with a co;»imittee. Town planner. Dr. K, Langer, believed that a coiranission could produce a good plan for the city provided it was p p Q not hampered by political interference, Mr. R, Ctimmings,

Professor of Architecture at the University of Queensland,

^^^B.C.C. Minutes, 25 Nov. 1958.

^^ Report on Town Plan (l954), 0£. cit.. paragraph ll4.

^^"^Courier Mail. 7 Jul. 1957.

^^^Ibid,. 16 July, 1957. 78

favoured preparation of the plan by an independent 229 commxssion, to avoid political interference.

The govemment, however, decided to accept the

recommendations of its three-man committee and on

13 January, 1959, appointed a five-member committee 230 to prepare a town plan for Brisbane, The members

of the committee were; Lord Mayor Groom; ;Ir. Slaughter;

Mr. L. Ord, Chairman of the City Cotmcil Health

Cormnittee; Professor L, Cummings; and Mr, Sewell. The

committee was given statutory authority by an act

introduced in March.

The act created the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee whose ftinction was to prepare a town plan for 231 Brisbane. Members of the committee were to be a

chairman, a deputy chairman, and one member, each

appointed by the City Cotmcil. The Senate of the

University of Queensland v/as to select one member and

the other member was to be appointed by the Minister 232 for Local Government. The committee was to:

"interview with Professor R. Ctimmings, July, 1967.

-^Interview with Mr, A, Heath, former Chief Planning Officer for Brisbane, April, I967.

^^-'•8° Elizabeth No. 18, Sec, 6.

^-^^Ibid,, Sec 7. 79

determine the personnel needed to prepare a plan, {l\ begin a civic survey and other investigations it deemed necessary for a town plan, (3) Consult with such associations and persons it deemed capable of informing it concerning matters pertaining to the preparation of a town plan, (4) have regard to representations, if any, made to it by any persons or associations concerning matters pertaining to the preparation of a town plan, (5) submit the plan and a report on the plan to the City Cotmcil.233

The plan was to follow then the procedures established by the 1936 Town Planning Act. It was to be open for inspection and objections for a 90 day period. At the end of this period the committee was to consider the objections and then submit the plan, report, objections, and its 234 subsequent recommendations to the Minister. The Governor- in-Council could then either accept, alter, or reject the 235 plan. The plan was to be binding on the government, the City Council and all persons. The Brisbane City

Cotmcil was given power to make ordinances providing for the regulation and control of the development and use of 237 land until the plan came into operation. Appeals on

Cotmcil decisions tinder these ordinances were to be to the p o Q Minister whose decision was to be final.

^^^Ibid,, Sec, 6, ^^ Ibid,, Sec, 9 235-rT,-^ -^ Ibxd.

^^''ibid,. , Sec. 12. ^^^Ibid,, Sec 13. 80

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF THE INITIATION OF THE BRISBANE TOWN PLAN

As was shown in Chapter II, the initial stage in the preparation of the Brisbane Town Plan was the creation of the Greater Brisbeine Town Planning Committee by the Queensland State Govemment in 1959. WHO was responsible for the creation of this committee?

A model for decision-making in local government units by Frank Mimger identifies seven "contestants" in the decision-making process. They are: (l) city public officials; (2) city bureaucracies; (3) party function­ aries; (4) the electors; (5) the press; (6) non-govern­ mental groups; (7) public officials and bureaucrats of other governmental units (state, federal, or bordering units). -^ Applying these classifications to the actors involved in the initiation of the Brisbane Town

-'^Martin, Roscoe and Prank J. Mtinger, _e1b, al,, Decisions in Syracuse, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1961, p. 3. 81

Plan we find they fall into three categories. In (7)

the state government was the final authority in totvn

planning. It delegated its powers to initiate and

formulate a town plan to its local authorities, in

this case the Brisbane City Cotmcil composed of (l)

city public officials and (2) city bureaucracies.

Each was responsible to the community in which one found the (4) electors, (5) the press, (6) non-govern­ mental groups and, if any, (3) party functionaries.

Diagrammatically, our model is:

State Government

Brisbane City Council

Community

What was the role of each of these sectors in the initiation of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Coiranittee?

The ftmdamental tmit of community influence is with the general electorate in selecting its representatives.

The electors in Brisbane selected the City Cotincil and

25 members of the State Parliament. If candidates for 82 these offices believed that the electors were dissat­ isfied by the failure of incumbent governments to provide a town plan it could have become an issue in the relevant campaigns.

The absence of a town plan, however, was not raised as an issue in municipal elections. Major policy speeches by candidates for Lord Mayor in 1952 and 1955 made no mention of a lack of, or even need for, a town plan, though over 17 years had passed since preparation of a 24o plan had begun. The need for comprehensive planning was mentioned in the 1958 Cotincil elections by the unsuccessful Municipal Labor candidate, Mr. C. Jones, but the campaign centered on the more immediate demands 24l for sewerage and water reticulation. Election campaigns for metropolitan zone members of State Parliament produced 242 no mention of town planning.

The city newspapers might wield potential influence through a campaign to rally public support for a town plan or reflect commtmity opinion in its coltimn of open letters to the editor. Only one of the two city daily

24o Courier Mail. Apr, 1952 and 1955

Courier Mail. April 1958

^^^Ibid. 83 newspapers, the Courier Mail, carried a substantial

editorial page and a review of this paper from 1949

to 1957 revealed only three editorials referring to or

calling for action toward a town plan. Plamxing was only mentioned in reporting infrequent comments made on the subject in the City Cotmcil or State Parliament. The review, over the eight years, discovered only four letters to the editor and two articles written by professional town planners in the community calling for a toivn plan.

This paucity of reference to planning appears to indicate that the press had neither a policy of attempting to encourage the formulation of a town plan, nor did it serve as a sotinding board for community opinion. 243

What was the role of non-governmental conmitinity organizations? The Brisbane City Cotmcil was the authority responsible for initiating a town plan. Research uncovered neither records nor any indications in inter^views with 21 presidents and secretaries of commtmity organizations or

11 members and officers of the City Council that any organization approached the Cotincil urging the preparation of a town plan. This did not mean that all members of

243 This view was also put for^^ard by Mr. E. Walsh, former Minister for Local Govemment, and Mr, S. Ramsden, (M,L.A., Merthyr), in interviews. 84

these organizations were satisfied with the current

exercise in toivn planning powers by the Cotincil. To

the contrary, interviews revealed that members of the

several associations favoured the creation of a

statutory plan.

The existing system of land-use control required that every development of land and the erection of every building and addition required the approval of the City

Council. Industries which had been established with manufacturing contrary to uses allowed in the proposed zoning schemes being enforced had no certainty that they could continue to use their land or be permitted to expand. 244 Land developers were dissatisfied with the protracted negotiations involved and conditions required 245 in subdivision approvals. Without a statutory plan these conflicts were being resolved in four ways.

Conditions could be negotiated by individual agree­ ments with the Council. One example was the developers agreeing to the minimum standards devised by the Town

Clerk in the 1940's. In many cases the Council would

Interview with Mr. L.A. Suggars, General Manager of Chamber of Meuiufacture s, May 1967. ^^IntervietJS with Officers of the Chamber of Commerce, Urban Land Institute, Institute of Surveyors, Institute of Architects, Real Estate Institute, all organizations with members who were land developers. 85

propose conditions for approval and then negotiate for

acceptable terms with the individual proposing the

subdivision. Constituents could approach aldermen to

exert influence on the Registration Board to gain or

prevent site-use or building application approvals.

If the individual was still dissatisfied with the

Council decision, there were no provisions whereby he

could appeal to a higher body. The only recourse to

the powers of the courts was to seek a prerogative writ

if the conditions were judged to be excessive. The

courts, however, were two-edged weapons, for delays and

costs involved in a court hearing could be used by the

City Council as a threat to bring the developer to

agreement.

Some persons turned to the influence of the state

govemment in trying to achieve their interests in land-

use applications. Although this means of influence

appeared to be used infrequently, two cases occurred

where persons unsuccessful in getting permission for

industrial expansions approached the Minister for Local 246 Govemment to present their cases to the Council.

The Minister claimed the Council listened to him because

^^ Interview with Mr, E. Walsh, July, I967. 86

of the merits of the case and the Cotincil approved the

applications it had previously rejected. Whether the

City Council responded to approaches through the government because of the influence of the position of the Minister

or because it had altered its application of policy

after reconsidering the merits of the application would be difficult to deteiTnine. It is certain that some

individuals in the commtmity did see the govemment as a means of getting one's position reconsidered,

A review of organization publications revealed neither any attempts by organization to encourage the

creation of a town plan, nor any indication that it was

the policy of any organization to urge members to make such 247 attempts. Commtmity organizations did not use the local newspapers to put forTirard a position on the

Cotmcil's IsLnd-use controls or indicate any desire for a

town plan. The Minister, Mr. Heading, stated in corres­ pondence that no commtmity organizations approached him 248 _ . ^. requestxng actxon on a town plan, Organxzatxons

appeared to have no overt aggressive polic3'- to encourage

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report, Monthly Review; Real Estate Institute of Queensland, Real Estate Journal, Hand Book; Brisbane Development Association, First Annual Report; Australian Planning^ Institute Journal. 248 Correspondence with Sir James Heading. 87 the initiation of a town plan. Inteirviews with Government officers indicated, however, that several commtmity organizations approached the government concerning town -1 - 249 plannxng matters. These representations were either direct submissions from commtmity organizations concerning land-use controls, or individuals in the conmitmity making their submissions on town planning as tinofficial repres­ entatives of a particular community interest.

With the exception of two or three independent planners in the coimiitinity, individuals attempting to secure a town plan were motivated by a desire to contain the discretionary powers of the Cotincil. Limiting these powers would shift development costs to the Cotincil and reduce its authority to restrict land-use. It was asstimed by individuals in the commtmity not satisfied with the exercise of land-use controls, that the City Council would not begin a plan with the intent of limiting its otvn powers. They turned their efforts to secure a town pla.n to the other authority for town planning, the state government. Their representations were made directly to the Minister and not through party

Interviews with Mr. J. A. Sewell, Jtme I967, and Mr, M. MacNamara, Jtme, I967. 88 intermediaries. Requests for a statutory town plan did increase with the change in the government party in 1957.^^°

The Government had delegated its town planning powers to the Brisbane City Council by the Local Government Acts and the City of Brisbane Acts. The Council had used these powers to enact ordinances controlling land-use and by the Local Governraent Act of 1936 had initiated and prepared a proposed town plan. The legislation required

Governo:p-in-Cotincil approval of ordinances and Parliamentary approval of town plan schemes.

The State government went no further to encourage town planning once it had granted such powers to the City

Cotmcil. Local Government Department policy was that town planning was a matter affecting only the local authority and so it should be left to them to initiate and formulate it as they desired. Moreover, town planning involved capital expenditures, and finances were to be the respons- 251 ibility of the local body.

This "hands off" policy by the govemment eliminated

Idem.

251 Idem,, Sewell. 89 it as potential initiator and advisor in town planning.

It precluded employment of town planning staff by the govemment. It also served to keep the state government above local disputes and dissatisfactions arising in the 252 preparations of a town plan.

To have acted on the town planning scheme fonifarded to it in 1953 would have required the govemment to deviate from this policy. It was evident in the report made on the plan, that there would need to be extensive revisions 253 xn the scheme. -^-^ The department had no staff trained in town planning to make the alterations. The large expendi­ tures required by the plan would require a financial commitment by the government. To form an effective comprehensive town plan would embroil the government in local disputes and disaffections. State Cabinet did not consider a town plan important enough or necessary enough to involve the government in the revisions of the plan.

It chose, instead, not to act at all by delaying any decision on the plan.

252 Idem., and Mr. E. J. Walsh. The Government did serve as the arbiter in a dispute in the preparation of a plan for the City of Mackay. When a division occurred in the City Council over controls on ribbon developments, the Minister was called in and acted with the advice of the Local Government Department Director. 253 Report by Director of Local Government on General Scheme submitted by Brisbane City Council, Aug, 1964. 90

The concept of town planning has commonly come to

include five different, though closely rela.ted, activities

They are:

(1) the preparation and administration of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. (2) fact-gathering with regard to land use, population movements, housing conditions, transportation and other matters, (3) the design of particular facilities or the making of plans for dealing with special land-use problems. (4) the preparation of a capital expenditures budget. (5) the preparation of a master plan (also called "comprehensive", "general", or "developmental" plan),254

The City Cotmcil had achieved the first ftinction of

town planning, the preparation and administration of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, through its powers to make ordinances and pass resolutions. It had also made a limited attempt at fact-gathering, the

second ftinction. Brisbane, hoxvever, as did many other larger cities in the world, went no further toward pec extending the concept of planning, Cotincil officers felt no need for the other ftinctions of planning.

^^ Banfield, Edward C, and James Q, Wilson, City Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I963, p. 187 9^

Even the preparation of a "to^vn plan" tmder the

1936 Local Government Acts was basically only for land-use control. The scheme initiated in the 1930's and adopted in 1944 by the City Cotincil was only a proposed zoning scheme. One of the major criticisms of the scheme forwarded to the government in 1953 was its failure to be anything but a general zoning scheme. The road plan and accompanying capital works prograxome required to implement the traffic scheme was prepared after the zoning scheme, more as an afterthought and with virtually no survey work.

The Local Government Department Director also pointed out the absence of plans for area redevelopment (special land- use problems) in the Spring Hill area.

If the City Council was to move to initiate the formulation and passage of a town plan, one or more of three situations needed to exist. Firstly, the Cotincil would be disposed to initiate a statutory town plan if it became dissatisfied with or lost its existing powers to regulate land use. Secondly, it would move to secure a town plan if it realized a need for comprehensive toivn plan. Finally, a dissatisfied electorate could require the Council to initiate a plan by threatening to not support aldermen if they failed to do so or replacing them if they didn't. 92

As we have seen, town planning did not become a significant election issue. Neither did members of the commtmity attempt to influence the Cotincil to begin a town plan. If the City Council was to move to secure a town plan, it would have to come from a desire to alter old or secure new powers.

The lengthy negotiations sometimes involved before approval of a land-use permit increased costs for the

Cotmcil. These costs could be reduced by a statutory plan regularizing conditions being demanded for permits.

The advantage of having specific authority to require certain conditions had not been sufficient to bring the

City Cotmcil to act to initiate a new town plan.

The City Council had little reason to be dissatisfied with its land-use control powers. The wide discretion granted to the Council by Chapters 35 and 8 of the ordinances were more likely to be limited by a statutory town plan. A plan would automatically allow certain uses in particular zones precluding Cotincil approval for all site-use applications.

Moreover, the existing system of granting land-use permits enhanced the power of the City Council and its 93

officers. The Council's Registration Board gave approvals

to applications for site-use, subdivision, and building

permits. Policy for the Board was formulated by the

City Cotmcil. Cotincil policy was formed by a permanent

committee of the City Cotmcil, the Establishment and

Co-ordination Committee. As chairman of this committee,

the Lord Mayor was a primary influence on the policies of 256 the Board. The Town Clerk was influential with the

Registration Board as head of the Cotmcil administration, under which the Board members were employed. He was also highly influential with the Lord Mayor and aldermen who relied on his experience as a permanent Coxxncil officer.

Finally, the Registration Board failed in its purpose to be a non-political administrator. The Board members were employed directly by the Cotmcil, and as stated by one senior Council officer, "men employed by politicians cannot be expected to make apolitical decisions". Aldermen could intercede directly and through the Lord Mayor and

Town Clerk to influence Board decisions on individual applications,

256 Interview with Sir Reginald Groom, former Lord ?Iayor of the City of Brisbane, September I967. 94

Council authority to regulate land use tinder its

ordinances was challenged by a decision of the High Court 257 in 1955 • The decision by the court invalidated the

Council ordinances controlling land-use, but by redrafting

the ordinances and defining residential areas within the

interpretation of the courts, the Council restored its

authority.

If the Cotmcil did not require a town plan for land use control, a need for a more comprehensive plan could bring it to begin preparation of a plan. Two of these

ftinctions were the preparation of a master plan and a

capital expenditures budget to implement the provisions of

an overall plan. Growth and development of the city created the need for these ftinctions.

Post-war development brought a rapid increase in the volume of traffic in the city streets. By 1957, the Lord

Mayor and Town Clerk recognized an urgent need to begin road planning and accompanying projects to relieve the city's increasing traffic problems. They believed that for a traffic plan to be effective it would need to be

^51 Vitosh V. B.C.C. (1956) St, R, Qld. 283.

^ Interview with Mr. L. O'Brien. 95

prepared in relation to the growth and development of

the city. This could best be achieved if it was part

of a master plan. The large costs involved in construct­

ing a road scheme in the city required the preparation of

a capital expenditures budget and final co-operation with

the state government,

The decline of the Spring Hill district adjacent to

the central city area had been noted by the Govemment

and various sectors of the commtmity for some time. Lord

Mayor Groom and the Town Clerk had become interested in

halting this decline. The Cotmcil needed redevelopment

powers to be granted by the government if it was to

attempt to prevent further degeneration in the area.

In 1957, it was annotinced by the Government that the

Main Roads Department was preparing to build a new office

building in the Spring Hill area. The development of

business offices in the area was contrary to the belief

of Groom and Slaughter that Spring Hill should be developed

as a high density residential area. State Governraent

departments, such as the Education Department, had resumed parklands and constructed buildings contrary to the plans

of the Cotmcil. As a subordinate authority the Council had no powers to prevent these actions by the Government. 96

Lord Mayor Groom and the Town Clerk, Mr, Slaughter,

approached the Govemment in 1958 through the Department

of Local Government Director asking for Government co­

operation in the preparation of a town plan. Their

purposes in achieving a plan were to:

prepare and begin an urgently needed road plan; [I] create redevelopment powers for the Councilj 3) secure crotvn co-operation in city development; [k) obtain statutory authority for conditions to be III demanded for land-use permits.

The State Government had now become the focus of efforts

to secure a totAm plan for Brisbane. Dissatisfied individuals

in the community wanted a to^vm plan as a guard against the

discretionary powers of the Cotmcil. The City Council saw a

plan as a foundation of its current land-use powers and an

extension of other town planning powers.

Government policy had been to delegate town planning

functions to the local authorities. The change in govern­ ments in 1957 did not inmiediately result in any changes in

that policy. Heading had been approached by his Department

Director, Mr. Sewell, but had deferred a government decision

on planning by referring the matter back to the department.

Interviews with the several pex'sons retDutedly involved in initiating the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee produced conflicting accounts of the interaction which took place. 97

As mentioned. Heading stated in I967 that no

commtmity organizations approached him urging the

preparation of a town plan. He also denied receiving

any representations by any member of the City Cotincil

or member of parliament for a town plan. Both the

Director of Local Government, Mr. Sewell, and Deputy

Director, Mr, MacNamara, stated that representations

were made by members of the commtmity to Heading on

town planning matters. Certain individuals were

recognized by those persons as representing various

non-governmental organizations. It seems probable that

no individuals or organizations from the commtmity did

approach Heading desiring a "comprehensive" town plan.

Persons making representations from the conmiunity were

only requesting legislation to define and restrict the

City Council's land use controls poxirers rather than

seeking the initiation of a complete plan. Represent­

ations urging the creation of a town plan could have also

been forgotten by the former Minister during the nine

years which have passed since he dealt with the issue.

The representations from the conmitmity and occasional newspaper references to planning kept him aware of the

desire by some sections of the community for town planning

legislation. 98

Ivr. Sewell stated that he did not recall any representations made to him by any member of the City

Cotmcil for a tov;n plan. Sir Reginald Groom, the then

Lord Mayor, stated that he and Mr, Slaughter approached the governraent about town planning matters through Mr,

Sewell, Mr. A. Heath, the former Council planner, said that action on the plan arose from discussions between

Mr. Slaughter and Mr. Sewell. Professor R. Cu-.-Jiiings, later appointed to the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee, recalled that at one point he was called into discussions with Groom and Slaughter and in these discussions they decided to approach the government on the matter. The local press reported at least one meeting between the Minister and Lord Mayor relating to 259 the initiation of the plan. It seems likely that the

Council did approach the government seeking govemment co-operation, finance, and legislation on the four mentioned above matters.

Local government policy would need to be revised if the government acted on the representations from the community for action on town planning matters. It would

^•^^Courier Mail, 17 Sept. 1958 99

have to either form a state planning authority and

become involved in planning or force the City Council

to act. Approaches by the Council offered a solution

to the problem. It left the actual initiative on

planning with the local authority. The government

could co-operate on a planning coirmiittee witM the

Cotmcil, but by giving the Cotincil a majority on the

committee, it could keep planning a Council respons­

ibility. If Heading and Sewell had considered this possibility before the report by the three man review committee of 1958 it became obvious they had adopted this policy after the report. The only alterations made by the governraent to the coimnittee' s report was to give the Cotincil three members, and, according to a newspaper report, to lower the percentage of government financial assistance on the plan from arecommended thirty-three percent to the twenty percent normally granted to local authorities tinder the 1936 Toivn Planning

A 4- 260

Act,

The Act gave the Cotmcil three members on the Committee, thus assuring Cotmcil interests majority control. The

Minister's appointment provided the government involvement

^^°Ibid,, 13 Nov. 1958 100 sought by Groom and Slaughter. The University appoint­ ment was included to give the committee a professional 261 and apolitical member.

We began this discussion by proposing seven contest­ ants in the decision-making process. In appraising their roles we find that the general electorate and newspapers did not seem to consider the preparation of a town plan an important enough issue to either actively favour or oppose. Party ftinctionaries, though mentioned in the discussion, were identified in interviews as actors in the initiation of the Committee. Non-governmental interest groups did not engage in any overt policy in trying to encourage legisla.tion they desired in town planning, the restriction and definition of the City

Council's land-use control powers. Any representations made from the commtmity urging a town plan were made to the state government. The City Council approached the government when social needs in the city required the government's co-operation in broader legislation and finances. The governraent was thus receiving

p zT -] Interviews with Kr. J. A. Sewell, and Mr. J. C, Slaughter, former Tov/n Clerk, Brisbane, Au ust, I967. 101

representations from the commtmity to limit Cotincil powers and approaches by the City Cotmcil requesting broader town planning powers. It acted when Council

co-operation made it possible to create a committee

to prepare a plan and yet remain consistent w^ith

existing local government policy. 102

CHAPTER rV

FORMATION OF THE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME

The members of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Conmiittee had actually been appointed on 13 January 1959, two months before the relevant act was passed in state parli8unent. The Planning Committee began by formul­ ating its aims suid objectives. They were:

(1) to provide an over-all plan for the orderly development of Brisbane; (2) to provide a plan which would safeguard the proper use and development of leuad so there should be a proper relationship between industrial, commercial, and residential use, whilst at the same time, the plan should maintain and provide adequate open space and other amenities and services; (3) the plan would ensure a population density for Brisbane which was in keeping with the economic circumstances of the time so that the cost of providing sernrices would always be kept at a minimum; (4) the plan should provide an adequate road and communication system,^°3

Interview with Mr, A. Heath.

Report on Greater Brisbane Town Plan, Report by Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee to Brisbane City Council, Ch. Mr. Clem Jones, l4 Nov. I96I, p. 3. 103

A major reason for the Lord Mayor's and Town Clerk's approaches to the govemment requesting co-operation in obtaining a town plan for Greater Brisbane had been to establish a statutory road plan. The Planning Committee emphasized the import of a road scheme in the plan when it stated in the report that "it is in this field

(traffic and communication planning) that the magnitude of the task becomes most apparent".26 4 It recognized the intrinsic difficulties in achieving a road scheme when it stated:

"The cost of producing a satisfactory road system will be tremendous; it will have very serious political implications, and there will be htindreds of people affected who will oppose the proposals; but it must never be for gotten that planning for the good of the many must always have some adverse affect on the few. It must at all times though, be realized that the aim was to keep at a minimum the adverse affect of any development on the individualy265

Various surnreys were begun to prepare a traffic and zoning scheme for the city. These surveys included a land-use survey, control and condition of land survey, an age emd condition of buildings survey, a public utilities survey, a land suitability survey, a geological survey.

Ibxd,

Ibxd, 104 a soil survey, an industrial and commercial survey, a population survey and surveys in the central city area concerning the number of workers engaged in particular pursuits, the use of floor space, site coverage and 266 valuation details. The City Council later initiated an origin and destination survey to gain more information p ZTi^ for designing a road scheme. Two community organiz­ ations, the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of

Manufactures, also assisted in these surveys by collating 268 and submitting information concerning their members. Five groups representing interests in the commtmity met with the Planning Committee on the Committee's invitation. These groups were the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures, and representatives of city brewers, hoteliers, and oil companies with service 269 stations in Brisbane. The Chamber of Manufactures met with the Greater Brisbane Town Plsuining Committee on several occasions because of the large number of its members who had site-uses which did not conform with proposed zones and were interested in the amount and

. , _. 266—,Ibxd., p. 5

Interview with Sir Reginald Groom, 268 Interview with Mr. J. Sewell. 269 Interview with Mr. J. Slaughter. 105 quality of land to be provided for future industrial use. The Planning Committee did increase the amount of land zones for future industry after receiving the

Chamber of Manufactures' submissions on projected industrial growth.

The hotel owners and oil companies made the same requests to the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee.

A ntimber of commercial buildings operated by both interests were located in proposed residential zones. If they remained as non-conforming uses, according to the plaui they would need City Council permission before they could meike any improvements to their premises or rebuild in the event their buildings were destroyed. Local property owners might pressure the City Council to prevent this. Both requested that special zones ("spot" zones) be created to zone their individual sites for their existing use. The Planning Committee did not provide spot zoning for hotel owners, but made such provisions for oil companies because of the greater number of 271 businesses involved.

270^.Idem^ ,

271x-a Idem, 106

llie Planning Committee also requested the various

govemment departments to submit an estimate of their future needs for land and services in the city. It was

particularly interested in the projected needs of the

Department of Education. The departments did give the

Planning Committee some information, but hesitated at 272 being committed to any definite predictions.

The three-member government committee which had

reported on the 1953 town planning scheme in 1958

estimated that preparation of the town plan would take 273 eighteen months. The Brisbane Town Planning Act of

1959 gave the Brisbane City Cotmcil authority to regulate and control the development and use of land in

the city, such authority to be effective tintil the plan became law.27 4 The Council proceeded to refer all application for site-use approvals to the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee for its advice to avoid granting approvals which would be in conflict with the new scheme though there were no provisions for such a procedure.

Under the planning act anyone could appeal a town

'Interviews with Mr. J. Sewell and Mr. M. MacNamara.

^''^B.C.C. Minutes, 25 Nov. 1958,

^''8° Elizabeth No. 18, Sec. 12. 107 planning decision by the Council to the Minister.

Dealing with site-use applications burdened the

Planning Committee with time-consuming day-to-day planning decisions. The Cotincil's town planning staff was involved in representing the Council in town plsmning 275 appeals. With a committee burdened with town planning administration emd the town planning staff inadequate to handle both planning and pleinning appeals the plem was not completed within the expected eighteen months.

The scheme had still not been completed at the time of the 1961 (29 April) municipal elections, twenty-seven months after the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee had begun functioning. Election issues, though, still continued to be the "bread and butter" issues of sewerage and water reticulation and the question of efficiency of 277 the incumbent administration. The Courier-Mail regarded road extensions and transport as other major issues, but these were mainly debates between the candi­ dates as to whether trams should be retained and where parking meters were to be located rather than what

'^Interview with Mr. A. Heath,

276,Idem^ .

^^^Courier Mail. l4 Apr. I96I. 108

278 improvements should be made in overall planning.

The Municipal Labor Party did charge that the absence

of a plan caused a lack of industrial sites emd had 279 prevented several industries from locating in Brisbane,

The Labor candidate for Lord Mayor, Mr, Clem Jones, also

stated that town planning ordinances should be"modernised"

to be consistent with conditions being required by the

City Council and that delays in granting site-use permits 280 should be eliminated. Town planning or the absence of a town plan generated little more comment than both municipal parties, the incumbent Citizen's Municipal

Organization and the Municipal Labor Party, agreeing on

the general necessity of "planning". Mr. Jones was elected Lord Mayor and the Municipal Labor Party won a majority of the Council seats in the elections.

On 10 May I96I, Lord Mayor Jones became Chairman of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee emd Alderman

C. J. Greenfield, chairman of the City Council's Health 281 Committee, became deputy chairman. Preparation of the scheme was then nearing completion; most of the

^"^^Ibid., 17 Apr. 196I

^"^^Ibid.. 25 Apr. 1961

280ibid.

Report, 1961, o£. cit.. p. 3 109

survey work hsid been completed and the information

processed. The principles of radial development and

developing the city into community tinits had been

designed into the scheme, A general design for a

road scheme had been completed and provisions for

colonnading in the central city, suggested by the

city planner, had been discussed.

Under the chairmanship of Lord Mayor Jones, the

Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee completed the

scheme and the accompemying report. Changes in the

plan arising from the change in the City Council

elected administration were limited to minor adjustments

in the road scheme and individual zoning alterations.

The Planning Committee finalized proposals which had

been under consideration for some time, such as 283 provisions for colonnading. The proposed tow;o n plan 284 and report was completed on 31st October I96I.'

pQ p Members of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee and planning staff were reluctant to state specifically what provisions had been included in the plan at the time of the change in the City Cotmcil administration. These statements are based on interviews with Sir Reginald Groom, Mr. L. Ord, Mr. J.E. Pickersgill, Mr. C. J. Greenfield and Professor R. Cummings. 2®^Idem. 284 Report, 1961, 0£. cit.. p. 3. 110

Concomitant with the 1959 Brisbane Town Planning Act,

the scherae was forwarded to the City Council on l4

November 196I. The Cotincil opened the scheme for public review on 22 November 1961.^^

The plan opened for review was based on the principle of developing the city into neighbourhood units. This concept was a popular planning idea at

the time and was proposed by the city planner, Mr. A.

Heath. It was also consistent with Lord Mayor Groom's belief that more functions in Brisbane should be carried out at the local level to foster a community spirit.

The neighbourhood would have basic shopping amenities, a church, eind used the priraary school as its foundation.

It was now proposed that the city would be divided into seven zones instead of the ten outlined in the 1953 pQO scheme. These zones would be:

^^^B.C.C. Minutes, l4 Nov. I96I. P86 Interview with Sir Reginald Groom. ^^"^Report, 1961, ojE». cit. , p. 8.

^^^Ibid., p. 8. The city was to be divided into thirty-two districts. Seven were rural districts (Brookfield, Pullenvale, Iloggill, Belmont, Brotvns Plains, Greenbank, and Roahedale) and the other 25 were either established or to be developed. Ill

1) future urban; , 2) non-urban; ,3) residential; .4) business: a) central business A, ^b) central business B, c) central business C, d) local business; (5) industryi (a) general, (b) light (doesn't interfere with surrounding neighbourhood), (c) noxious, offensive or hazardous, (d) extractive; (6) special uses: (a) special uses A (public utilities, education, cemetaries, bowling clubs), (b) special uses B (railways); (7) open spaces: existing, 1.1proposed ^ . 289 Within each of these zones were three categories of potential land use. The first category listed uses to be allowed on land which did not require the consent of the City Cotmcil. The 1952 plan had failed to provide for uses in this category except for single family dwellings in a residential zone and agriculture in the rural and 290 green belt zones. The report now proposed a greater number of uses which would not require council permission.29 1

The other two categories listed uses which would require the permission of the Council and uses which were absolutely

^^^Ibid,, p. 10

^ Report by Sewell, 1954, pp.27-29, og. cit. 291 Report, 1961, 0£. cit., p, l4. 112

prohibited, " Existing uses of land which did not

conform with proposed zones could be allowed to continue

and the buildings could be repaired or expanded with the permission of the City Council. With Council approval, one non-conforming use could be changed to another if 293 it was no greater nuiseince than the existing use.

One of the Council's purposes in achieving a statutory town plan was to prevent State Government departments from using their powers as a superior authority to use land in the city contrary to the plans of the

Coxincil. Two examples where this occurred, mentioned in previous chapter, were the construction of the Department of Main Roads' office building in spring Hill and the

Department of Education's selection of sites for new schools. The plan now proposed that the government would be bound by the plan but provided that the Council could not refuse to grant an application made by the govemment or a public utility nor attach conditions to consent on the application unless it had first consulted with the 294 Minister and took his representations into consideration.

^^^Ibid,

^^^Ibid., p, 20

^^ Ibid,, p. 23 113

Site-use applications for service stations were to be approved by the City Cotincil only on the recommendation 295 of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee. Land available for future development in the city was zoned future urban. The council could only permit land sub­ divisions for residential purposes in these areas on the recommendation of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee. The criterion to be used by the Planning

Conmiittee in determining its recommendation was:

(a) that there was a "demand of a real nature" for residential allotments; (b) the subdivision was to be in keeping with the orderly development of the city. The land should be "ripe" for subdivision, especially in regard to other tin-subdivided land in the future urban zone more readily capable of development land in closer proximity to existing essential services; (c) the subdivision would not immediately, or in the future, involve the City Cotincil in undue expense in extending and maintaining essential services to the land, including transport; (d) the land was to be capable of being effectively and economically sewered at no cost to the City Cotmcil. 296

By the plan, no person was to be allowed to erect, maintain, or make permanent improvements to a building which was in the line of or adjacent to a proposed road, other than

^^^Ibid.. p. 24. 114 would be permitted if the road really existed.29 7

An appendix to the plan provided a maximtim percentage site coverage by buildings in particular zones and regulations governing the size and shape of 298 buildings. Regulation of the size and shape of buildings was based on the percentage of permitted site coverage and maximum floor space index. Both regulations were based on conditions the City Council had been imposing. Site coverages to be permitted were:

retail business - 100^^; office zones - 33^, 50^, 75^, and 100^ as defined 11i n the central city; warehouseJL s - 75^ and 100^: (c) li (d) industriali zones - 759^*^^^ The appendix also provided a twelve foot colonnade, or building line, in the central city. The Spring Hill suburb was designated for redevelopment,

The plan as submitted was still little more than a proposed zoning and road scheme. The Planning Committee stated that work was needed on the provisions to imple­ ment the plan. Acts were needed to cover:

^^''ibid,, p. 21 298 Ibid,. Appendix I, ^^^Ibid, 300^., . - •^ Ibxd, 115

(a) the method of dealing with future alterations of the town plan; (b) the constitution of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee and its functions; c) provision for five-yearly reviews; d) enforcement provisions; e) redevelopment areas; f) compensation provisions under the plan; ,g) requirements as to land injuriously affected by the town plan; ^h) provisions for legal proceedings; i) ordinances concerning subdivisions; j) appeal provisions; ^k) restrictions of access to roads; l) miscellaneous .-^^1

The plan was to be on review for a period of ninety

days. In December, Lord Mayor Jones extended the review

time by fifteen days to allow for week-ends and holidays

when the plan would not be open for inspection. 302

Alderman F. C. Olsen (C.M.O.) asked that the review

period be extended tintil the government had prepared the 303 enactxng legislation,-'^ -^ and Mr. T, H. Cross, president

of the Brisbane Development Association, supported the 304 request. Lord Mayor Jones did not extend the review

time because he did not feel there wasenough public demand

to keep the plan open, and he further believed that to extend the review period would only cause unnecessary

^^•'^Ibid., p. 4,

^^^Courier Mail. 20 Dec. 196I

^°^Ibid., 14 Feb. I962.

^ Ibid., 15 Feb, I962. 116

delays in achieving the plan. 305 In reply to requests

from the community to the govemment to intervene and

extend the review time, the Minister for Local Government,

Mr. H. Richter, stated on two occasions that any extension

of review time was "a matter entirely in the hands of

the Brisbane City Council".

Five hundred sixty-six objections to the town plan 307 had been received by the City Cotmcil by February 1.962.

This number nearly doubled to one-thousand ninety within or\Q the next ten days. Several hundred were received in the last few days before the plan was due to be taken from review on 7 March.-"30^ 9 The Lord Mayor still did not favour extending the review time, and a motion by

Alderman Olsen to have the City Council extend the 310 review time by sixty days was defeated.^ The govem­ ment, however, became alarmed at the large number of objections received in final days the plan was open for review. Fearful that it might be held responsible for not allowing enough review time for an unpopular plan.

-^^^Courier Mail. 6 Feb. 1962, and Qld, Pari. Deb,, Vol, CCXXXII, 1962, p. 2561, 21 Mar. ^°^Ibid., p. 2133, 28 Feb.and P.2195, 6 Mar.1962. ^^^Courier Mail. 26 Feb.1962. ^^^Ibid.. 6 Mar, I962, -^ "interview with Mr. A, Heath. -^•^'^Courier Mail. 7 Mar I962 and interview with Mr. F. Olsen. 117

it reversed its stated position of 3 March and intro-

duced legislation to extend the review period. 311

The act provided that the plan was to be open for 312 objections for an additional ninety days. At the

request of the Lord Mayor, the act also gave statutory

authority to recommendations of the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee to the City Council on interim

land development applications. 313 Only two hundred

additional objections were received during the extended 314 period.

The plan was closed for objections in June I962

and returned to the Greater Brisbane To^^m. Planning Committee for its review and recoimnendatians on all the

objections. Three-thousand and fifty-three objections 31 "^ had been received. ^he majority of these objections

were from individual land owners with site-uses not

conforming with new zones on the proposed scheme and

from persons with property affected by the proposed 31 6 road scheme. Many of theobjections to the traffic

^•'••'"Qld. Pari. Deb., Vol. CCXXXII, I962, p. 2307, 13 Mar. -^"'"^11° Elizabeth No. 42, Sec. 3.

^ Interview with Mr. A. Heath. ^-'•^Courier Mail. 3 Jun, I962. -'I Interview with Mr. L. Guthrie, former Coramtini cat ions Officer in the Brisbane City Cotmcil Planning and Building Department, July I967. 118 plsm came from residents in the suburb of Upper Mount

Gravatt where a proposed expressway was to pass through

the community and divide a local golf course. 317

The Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Manufactures

objected to the plan as being only a negative restrictive

scheme designed to safeguard the powers of the Brisbane

City Council. They maintained that the plan only

stated what could not be done and did not say what could be done for development, giving insufficient consideration

to the rights of commerce, industry, and the city's o -1 Q citizens. Retailers in the city objected to the proposed twelve feet colonnading requirements for the central city area. They believed it to be only an attempt at resumption without compensation and said no one would modernize their building facades in the city 319 because it would mean losing valuable street frontage. Dr. Karl Langer and the Property Owners Association both criticized the scheme's redevelopment plans for the

Spring Hill area. Dr. Langer predicted that because of industrial establishments in the area it would become a

^•"•^Idem. ^•'•^"Brisbane Town Plan", Monthly Review. Circular I63, Brisbane: The Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, I6 Dec, 1964, p, 4. ^•"•^Courier Mail, 23 Feb. I962. 119 multi-storeyed slum with the high-rise flats proposed 320 in the scheme. A former Brisbane City Cotmcil Vice- Mayor, Mr, J, Moon, accused the Greater Brisbane Town

Planning Committee of having failed to plan because it had made no plans for land in the non-urban zones. 321

Most objections from community organizations, however, were not directed at the proposed town plan but at the absence of the legislation necessary to enforce the plan. The Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee could propose a town planning scheme but the state government would have to pass the legislation to implement the plan. As mentioned, the Planning Committee had noted in its report twelve areas where legislation 322 was required.

The Minister for Local Government in 1959, Mr. J.

Heading, had stated in Parliament that the govemment was planning to construct general town planning legisla- 323 tion for the entire state,-'^ -^ and preparations for the

-^ Ibid.. 23 Feb. I962 and written submission by Property Owners Association to the Brisbane City Cotmcil Town Clerk, 29 Feb. I962. ^^•""Courier Mail. 6 Mar, 1962, -'^^Report, 1961, o£, cit,. p, 4. ^^\ld. Pari. Deb., 1959, Vol CCCXXIII, pp 2497-98, 24 Mar, 120

324 legislation had been started. In I96O Mr. Heading retired from the Ministry and the Department of Local

Government Director, Mr. J. Sewell, left to become

Under-Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. L.H.S. Roberts

(Whitsunday) became Minister for Local Government in

Febmary I96I, but died shortly after in April of the ope sEune year, Mr. H. Richter (Somerset) was then appointed Minister for Local Government. In the meautitime, Mr. M. MacNamara was appointed Director of the Department of Local Government, filling the position left vacant by Mr. Sewell,

The town planning legislation had still not been presented by the govemment by the time the plan was opened for review. In February I962, the Minister stated that in 1958 the State Cabinet had charged the

Greater Brisbsme Town Planning Committee with the task of considering and reporting on the amendments necessary in the town planning legislation. Further, he said he felt it would be discourteous to the City Council for him to make any statement on the legislation until he

-'Correspondence with Sir James Heading, 9 Oct. I967

^^^Qld. Pari. Deb., I96I, Vol. CCXXVII 121 had seen the plan and considered the Coimnittee's submissions. Persons involved in the drafting of the legislation indicated that work on the act did not begin until after the City Council had submitted the town plan and report for Govemor-in-

Council approval. These persons and officers of the City Council stated that neither the Planning

Committee nor the City Council was consulted when 327 enacting legislation was eventually drafted.

Non-governmental organizations continued to object to the absence of enacting legislation even though the Minister had now stated that it would not O pO be complete until he had reviewed the plan. They queried, how could the effect of a town plan be judged until the way it was to be administered could be reviewed at the same time. Their objections to the plan were requests for legislation on:

^^^Ibid,, Vol. CCXXXII, 1962, p. 2133, 28 Feb, -^ 'Persons interviewed on this matter included Mr. J. Slaughter. -^Organs using the local press to state their case were the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufac­ tures, the Brisbane Development Association, the Real Estate Institute, the Institute of Surveyors, and the Urban Land Institute. 122

(a) rights of appeal on decisions made under the town plan; (b) the basis and procedures for receiving compensation when injuriously affected by the plan; (c) arrangements to finance the provisions of the plan; (d) the authority responsible for administering the plan; (e) the process to amend the plan; (f) the implementing ordinances.

The Planning Committee recommended individual zoning changes and a few revisions in the road scheme. No changes were made in redevelopment proposals, colonnading plans or to add definition to plans for non-urban areas.

The Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee returned the plan, report, objections, and its recommendations on the objections to the City Council. The Council subsequently forwarded the plan to the state government in October I963,

As previously explained, the governraent policy on town planning precluded the employment of qualified town planners in the Department of Local Government.

Mr. M. MacNamara, Director of the Department, and two other members of the staff under him tried to formulate

329 Interview with Mr, L. Guthrie, 330ideM. 123

an objective in considering the plan. None of the men were qualified town planners, and MacNamara soon

came to believe that it would take months or even years for them to give the plan proper and critical

consideration. He decided to recommend to cabinet

that they accept the plan in principle, arguing that

since the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee was a statutory committee it would surely be foolish for another government department to overrule it.33 1 332 The government accepted this recommendation.

The plan had now been in preparation for over five years. During that time changes occurred in the

Greater Brisbane area as a result of natural growth and decisions by the Surveyor General on objections

to interim land-use controls. 333 The City Cotincil wanted alterations made to the plan to adjust to the city's development, but the Local Government Department did not have staff capable and qualified to up-date the scheme.-^-^ Only the Council had town planning staff, so, though there were no provisions for such a

^^Interview with Mr. M. MacNamara, Director of the Department of Local Government, May, I967. ^^^Idem, ^^^Idem, ^^^Idem, 124

procedure in the "Brisbane Town Planning Act of 1959"»

the plan was returned to the Council on 5 July I963. 335

The City Council later returned the plan to the

government after the alterations had been made.

The govemment did meike some changes in the plan.

It accepted the recommendation by the Planning Committee

that service stations should be permitted by special

zones rather than at the recommendation of the Greater

Brisbane Town Planning Committee as proposed in the o *^/T report. A provision requiring non-conforming uses to be registered with the Council within twelve months

of the gazetting of the plan was deleted. 337 Site

coverage requirements were limited to a provision

that no more than seventy-five percent of the total

area of any allotment could be used by £iny building 338 except in the central business zones A and B,

The planning report proposed that the plan should be binding on the government after the Cotmcil had

taken any representations by the government into

^^^Idem. ^^^Qld. Govemment Gazette, I965, Vol. CCXX, No. 73, p, I8O3, 21 Dec, 337lb±d. 338ibid. 125 consideration. 339 Government departments, such as the Department of Education, would require land from time to time. The government believed that if it were required to obtain City Council permission for its underteikings it would be placing itself in an inferior 34o position to a local authority. To prevent this, the provisions binding the government to the plan were 34l deleted.

The other change made in the plan concerned the fraimework of the entire plan, the road scheme. The scheme involved the co-operation of the government's

Department of Main Roads. The Commissioner of Main

Roads, Mr. Barton, however, was not satisfied with the proposed road scheme. He did not believe that the preparatory work was comprehensive enough to warrant the government's commitment to the plan, and wanted a 342 road plan prepared by a traffic engineer. In addition, the location of proposed roads had created a large number of objections to the plan by the commtmity.

•'-'^Report, 1961, 0£. cit,, p. 23, 34o Interview with Mr. M. MacNamara, 341 •^ Idem. -'Interviews with Mr. Slaughter, Mr, M. MacNamara, emd Mr, A. Heath, 126

The government could use the recommendations of a body of experts to substantiate the need for unpopular 343 resumptions involved in implementing the road scheme.

In 1962 a joint committee on tremsport composed

of representatives from the government and City Council proceeded to act on this recommendation. It employed a firm of traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith and 344 Associates, to prepare a transport plan for the city.

By August, 1965, the firm had completed a proposed traffic and transport scheme for the city. The scheme differed with proposals in the road scheme prepared by the

Greater Brisbane Town Plaruxing Committee. The govemment chose not to act on either scheme and all road plans were deleted from the town plan gazetted in December

1965. The town plan and report then received Govemor- 345 in-Council approval, on 21 December I965.

-^ -^Interview with Mr. A. Heath. -^ Members of the Committee included the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Railways, the Commissioner for Main Roads, the Brisbane Lord Mayor, and the Town Clerk, ^^^Qld. Govemment Gazette, I965. Vol. CCXX. No. 73, p, 1777, 21 Dec 127

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE FORMATION OF THE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME

In the third chapter we traced the actions leading

to the creation of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee. In determining the forces existant in the

creation of the committee we identified seven different

contestants in the decision-making process, then discussed their roles. By I962, the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee had prepared a town plan.

This plan was then opened for objections, reconsidered,

and then altered and approved by the State Government.

What was the role of the contestants in decision-making

in the creation of the proposed plan and in the scheme made statutory in 1965?

The Government created the Greater Brisbane Town

Planning Committee to prepare a town plan for the City of Brisbane. The Committee was comprised of five members; three nominated by the City Council, one by the Minister for Local Government and one nominated 128 by the University of Queensland Senate. Concomitant to the provisions of the "City of Brisbane Town Planning

Act of 1959" the Committee began the preparation of a town plan. What was the role of each of the Committee members in the formation of the town plan?

The 1959 act gave the City Cotincil interests a majority representation on the Planning Committee.

This device gave the Council potential control of the

Planning Committee and allowed the Government to remain consistent with its policy of non-involvement in local authority planning. The result was to give the Lord

Mayor control of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee and the preparation of the town plan.

As has already been shown, the Lord Mayor was the major decision-maker in City Council town planning matters. Lord Mayor Groom was installed as chairman of the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee. One of the members of the City Council's "cabinet", permanent committee chairman Alderman L. Ord, was appointed

Deputy Chairman. The Brisbeine City Cotincil then delegated all of its town planning powers to the policy making Establishment and Co-ordination Committee.

The delegation empowered this committee to make decisions on matters arising during the preparation of the town 129

plsui. These powers were to lapse when the plan was 346 completed. The resolution increased the Lord

Mayor's influence in forming town planning policy,

for, as chairman, the Lord Mayor controlled the

Establishment and Co-ordination Committee. Thus, as major decision-maker of the Cotmcil town planning policies and chairman of the Greater Brisbane Town

Planning Committee with a majority of representatives from the City. Council, the Lord Mayor could control the preparation of the Brisbane Tovox Plan. Anyone attempting to influence decisions in the preparation of the plan could only do so by their capacity to affect the decisions of the Lord Mayor.

The Town Clerk, Mr. J. Slaughter, was named in interviews as being an important decision-maker on the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, Mr.

Slaughter had served as the head of the Council's administration since 1940. In this position he had gained considerable knowledge of City Council financial affairs, and, in the case of town planning, had dealt

^ B.C.C. Minutes, 25 Nov, 1958, 130

with land-use controls. Elected officials of the Cit}'"

Cotmcil relied on Mr. Slaughter's experience in Council

affairs. In addition, their dependence on the Totvn

Clerk's knowledge and experience in one area increased

his influence on other areas. Lord Mayors relied on

the Tov/n Clerk's greater knowledge in Council finances,

and, as a result, depended on him in other areas where 347 they had Ixmxted experxence, e.g., town planning. That his influence in town planning matters was a

function of the planning experience and confidence of

the Lord Mayors was substantiated after the ch ai;::e in

Lord Ma3^ors during the preparation of the Brisbane Totim

Plan. Lord Mayor Jones' experiences as a surveyor had

given him more definite views on town planning than

previous Lord Ma3'"ors had possessed, and interviews

indicated that the Town Clerk's influence on the Greater

Brisbane To\-m. Planning Committee and in City Council 348 totvn planning matters decreased accordingly.

The other two members of the Greater Brisbane Town

Planning Committee were the nominee of the Minister,

Mr. J, A. Sewell, and the nominee of the University of

347 Interview with Mr. C, Bennett. -^Interview with Mr. A, Heath and two other persons who did not wish to be named. 131

Queensland Senate, Professor R. Cummings. Their influence was limited to the degree the Planning

Committee accepted their professional advice; Sewell as sua expert in local government law and Cummings as the only trained town planner on the Committee. Mr.

Sewell might have been influential on the Planning

Committee when speaking on any provisions which the government might require, Both Lord Mayors who served on the Committee realized the necessity for governmental approval for the plan to be accepted.

The Minister, Mr. Heading, had no definite ideas on what he might want in a to\\na plein, and, because of its policy of non-involvement in town planning matters, the Local Government Department had developed no principles or provisions on town planning which it might require. As a result, Mr. Sewell received no instructions concerning any provisions which the 349 government night require in the plan.

The City Council's town planning staff was the only section of the governraent or Cotmcil which was

349 Letter from Sir James Heading and interviews with Mr. J. Sewell and Mr, McNamara. 132

directly involved in the preparation of the scheme. The

influence of the planning staff appeared to be limited

to its work on the technical aspects of the plan. Any

other influence by the staff would have been by the

pleoining proposals it chose to submit for the Plemning

Committee to consider. Such influence was very limited

and was only successful when the proposals were consistent with the planning ideas of the members of the Greater

Brisbane Tovm Planning Committee.

Two of the functions granted to the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee by the "Brisbane Town Planning

Act of 1959" were to:

(1) consult with such associations and persons it deemed capable of informing it concerning raatters pertaining to the preparation of a town plan. (2) have regard to representations, if any, made to it by any persons or associations concerning matters pertaining to the preparation of a town plan.350

No sector of the community, however, played a significEint

role in the formation of the plan.

A Council election was held in I96I before the plan had been completed. The few references to the status of

^^^8° Elizabeth, No. 18, Sec, 6. 133

the plan by either of the two caindidates for Lord Mayor

indicated that they did not view town planning as a

significant issue with the electors. In one of its three references to town planning in the press, the

Municipal Labor Party promised to "overhaul the Council's

Planning and Building Department, modernize the ordinances and speed the process involved in granting site-use approvals." There was, however, no delineation on what such changes would be.35 1 The Courier Mail identified the main issues of the campaign as being the "bread and butter" issues of sewerage, water, road extensions and 352 transport. Eleven persons stated in interviews that town planning was a major issue in the I96I Cotincil elections. Though the provisions of the plan being prepared were an issue with some persons in the community, the paucity of references to planning during the campaign suggests that the electors in general were not interested.

Neither did the local press make any effort to influence any provisions of the plan being prepared. Of two editorials appearing in the Courier Mail, one called

-^^•^Courier Mail. 25 April I96I

^^^Ibid.. 17 April I96I 134 for faster action in getting the plan completed and the other warned that some people in the city would obviously be hurt by the plan. Other references to pleuining were limited to information released by the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee on the development of the plan and four letters to the editor of the Courier Mail urging faster completion of the plan.

Several non-governmental organizations were active during the preparation of the town plan. In 1957 an organization called the Brisbane Development Association was formed. Its numbers were mainly representatives of business and professional organizations and a few private citizens. Its purpose was, among others, to encourage the completion of the preparation of the Brisbane town plan. In 1958, the chsiirman of the organization's committee on town planning, the Citizen's Town Planning

Committee wrote to the Minister asking if he would consider including a representative of the city's business and professional interests on the Greater

Brisbane Town Planning Committee nominated by his 354 association's committee."^^ The Minister, however.

^^•^Sooveerd, K.J., "The Brisbane Development Assoc­ iation", Government Honours IV paper (mimeo) 3 Apr I967.

^^ Letter from J. Shearer to Mr. J. Heading, 17 Sep. 1958. 135 claimed that any additional members of the committee would only impede its work and organizational interests could be expressed during the time the plan was to be on revxew.35 5

Deprived of representation on the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee, non-governmental organizations searved only as information-givers during the preparation of the scheme. The Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Manufactures assisted in collecting and releasing data concerning the interests of each organization for 356 particular surveys. The Planning Committee invited representatives from the Charaber of Coraraerce, the

Chamber of Manufactures, the Queensland Hotels Association, and from oil companies with automotive service stations to meet with them to discuss their members' requirements in the plan. Some changes were made as a result of these meetings. The amount of land zoned for industrial purposes was increased on the basis of projected needs presented by the Chamber of Manufactures. Hoteliers met with the Planning Committee and requested "spot"

•^^^Interview with Mr. J. Sewell.

^•5°Interview with Mr. Sewell and Mr. C. Robertson, Secretary of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Apr. I967. 136

zoning for hotels located in residential areas. This

would preclude the necessity of Council permits to

rebuild or alter their buildings, required if they

remained as non-conforraing uses. They did not receive

"spot"zoning for their businesses but oil companies

did because of the larger number of establishments 357 involved.

The Fourth Group of actors identified in the

decision-making process, party functionaries, did not

appear to be involved in the formation of the proposed

town. plan. Interviews with all persons involved in the

processes of forming the scheme revealed no mention of any

person acting through the organization of either of the

two mtmicipal parties or any of the parties represented in

the state parliament to attempt to influence the formation

of the scheme. Neither did the change in Cotmcil elected

administrations cause any major differences in the plan.

Committee members were reluctant' to state tmder which administration particular decisions on the town plan were made, but often emphasized that the two administra­

tions had at least considered the same proposals. Most of the survey work had been completed and general

357 Interview with Mr, Slaughter. 137

principles had been adopted while Lord Mayor Groom was

still in office and chairman of the Greater Brisbane 358 Town Planning Committee, Under the chairmanship of

Lord Mayor Jones, the Planning Committee made some

changes in theroad scheme and finalized provisions being discussed by the previous administration. 359 The

only significant change in town planning resulting from

the change in administrations appeared to be in the decision-making role of the Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor Jones had more definite ideas on what he wanted in town planning

than Groom, which decreased the influence other actors may have had in town planning decisions.

Up to the point of preparing the town plan for public review and objections the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee had fulfilled the purposes of the govemment in forming it and the City Council in participating in it.

The Planning Committee had been able to formulate a scheme for the city satisfying the requests from the Council and community. It had also kept planning a local authority ftinction and enabled the government to avoid what it

-^^ Interviews with Mr. A. Heath, Mr. L. Ord, Mr. C.J, Greenfield and Sir Reginald Groom.

^^^Idem, 138 considered unnecessary involvement in local affairs and disputes. The City Council had been able to maintain control of planning, but at the same time achieved the co-operation from government departments.

Representatives from community interests failed to gain the opportunity to directly affect the formulation of the scheme when denied membership on the Planning

Committee. Individuals or interests in the community could have been effective in affecting provisions in the plan if they could exert influence on the Greater

Brisbane Town Planning Committee's primary decision-maker, the Lord Mayor. Interviews with Planning Committee members, town planning staff, and organization presidents and secretaries indicated that the only contestants in decision-making from the community involved in any way in the preparation of a town plan were non-governmental organizations. Their role was limited to providing information for the Planning Committee, Their influence depended on the merit the Lord Mayor and Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee gave to the information.

360 Interviews with Mr. J. Sewell, Mr, J. Slaughter, and Mr. M. MacNamara. 139

The community had its first opportunity to express its reaction to the proposals in the plan when it was placed on review for public inspection and objections.

At the end of the review period over three thousand objections had been received. The majority of these objections were written submissions from individual property owners affected by the road scheme and persons with non-conforming uses in areas zoned residential.

There were claims by City Council aldermen and govemment officers that some of the objections had been printed and circulated to be sent in by householders in particular o /C p areas. Most co-operative action in objecting to provisions in the town plan, however, appeared to be through existing non-governmental organizations.

One exception occurred in a new outer suburb, Upper

Mount Gravatt. A part of the area was included in a non-urban zone precluding planned subdivisions. Forty land owners affected by the zoning organized to make a 364 formal protest. At a later meeting, sponsored by these persons, the Courier Mail reported that sixty percent

Interview with Mr, L, Guthrie. Non-conforming uses included a number of small shops, hotels and churches. 362'Courie, r Mail, 15 Feb. I962 and 23 Feb. I962. ^^Ibid.J- . 16 Jan. I962 364^ Ibid, i4o

of the Upper Mount Gravatt landowners had decided

individually and collectively to protest the proposed z onxng,36 -5^

The only groups organized to represent the interests

of particular communities which existed at the time the

town plan was opened for objections were local improvement associations called Progress Associations. The associa­ tions provide various suburbs with a collective voice on such matters as local property valuations and services in the area. Persons in particular communities who were now commonly affected by provisions in the proposed town plan turned to the associations to submit their objections, and some associations also publicly stated their objections in the local press.

No community organizations raised any objections to the general principles on which the plan was based. They only concerned themselves with the provisions or absence of provisions which directly affected their members.

Commercial and professional organizations in the community made written submissions to the Greater Brisbane Town

Plsuxning Committee concerning the effect of provisions in the proposed town plan on their members. The Chamber of

^^ Ibid.. 18 Jan. I962 141

Manufactures had previously met with the Planning

Committee concerning non-conforming land uses and the

amount of land to be zoned for industrial use. They

collected the objections of members to the plan and 366 submitted them together to emphasize coimnon problems.

The Retailer's Association objected to the proposed colonnading, for it meant that some of the organization's

central city members would lose valuable floor space.

Non-governmental organizations were also concerned with

the absence of legislation which was to enforce the plan.

They used the local press and made submissions to the

Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee and Government requesting that the legislation be prepared and submitted with the proposed plan.

The press did not assume an aggressive policy on any provisions in the town plan. Two editorials appeared during the time the plan was being reviewed. One cautiously admitted the need for implementing legislation from the govemment by agreeing that organisations asking for such

•^ Interviews with Mr. J. Sewell and Mr. L. Suggars.

^^Courier Mail. 23 Feb. I962

^ Interviews with the heads of non-governmental organizations and the Courier Mail. Jan. said Feb. I962. l42

369 legislation had "posed important questions." The other criticized the Government for extending the review time without consulting the Lord Mayor or Greater 370 Brisbane Town Planning Committee. The local press might have attempted to affect the town plan by the events and statements it chose to report. Twenty-six of ninety-six articles referring to the town plsux appearing in the Courier Mail from January I962 to June I962 concerned requests for the enacting legislation to be presented for review with the plan. This, however, was a major issue being raised by a ntimber of non-governmental organizations using the press to put forward their position. The only replies to these requests were three statements by Lord Mayor Jones that the legislation and the town plan were two separate matters.37 1 Newspapers could not report any other statements on the absence of the enacting legislation because the authority responsible for it, the State Government, neither made any reply to the requests, nor presented the legislation. Bias in the press was a function of its use by contestants in the

^^^Courier Mail, 23 Feb. I962.

^^^Ibid.. 10 Mar. I962.

^^•'•Ibid., 23 Feb. and 27 Feb. I962. l43

decision-making process rather than the result of any

purposeful policy of the press.

After the proposed planning schemes had been taken

from public review the City Council returned the plan

and objections to the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee. The Planning Committee was to review and make

its recommendation on each objection. Any alterations

recommended in the plan would indicate the persons or

types of interests able to influence the Planning Committee, whether that influence was in the form of any type of

coercion or by the merits of the particular case.

The immediately obvious method of determining if any

objections were successful, and, if so, what ones were

successful would be to compare the objectionsto the

alterations recommended by the Greater Brisbane Town

Planning Committee. The file of objections and recommended

alterationsmade by the Planning Committee, however, was not available to the researcher. Another means of ascertaining the effect of objections on the scheme was

to ask the members of the Planning Committee and planning

staff involved in considering them. Details of the changes from these sources were limited by persons forgetting many of the decisions made on the scheme during the five 144

years since the review was completed or not wishing to

reveal informationconcerning the changes made. Statements

made in interviews on the matter did suggest a pattern in

the recommended alterations which was consistent id.th the body making them.

Recommended alterations were largely concerned with 372 individual zoning changes. There were few changes recommended in the proposed road scheme. The large number

of objections to a proposed expressway through Upper Motint

Gravatt failed to bring a change in the scheme. 373

Individuals and organizations in the community used three methods to submit their objections (attempts to influence the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee).

They were:

(a) written submissions to the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee; written submissions to the Government; 11 publicising their objections in the local press. The objections could be successful in achieving alterations if they directly influenced the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee to recommend chemges in the plan it had submitted. Objectors could also effect recommended

372 -" Interview with Mr. L. Guthrie, ^^^Idem. 145 changes in the plan if first they could bring the govem­ ment or press to attempt to exert influence and then if the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee responded to these efforts to influence its decisions.

Written submissions tendered to the Greater Brisbane

Town Planning Committee gave the committee additional information on particular problems. The submissions also revealed potential political disaffection by registering an objector's disfavour with the various proposals. The planning committee considering the objections was the same body which had submitted the proposed scheme. Interests in the commtmity had only served as information givers to the Planning Committee during the preparation of the totAm plan. Any alterations it might recommend to the plan would result from theinforraation submitted to it or from the

Planning Committee's response to potential disaffection by theobjectors. The individual zoning changes which were recommended were made on the information received in ob­ jections. Such changes were made to accommodate individual objections as long as it involved no major changes in the plan. Alterations such as changes in the road scheme involved the foundations of the plan and represented a major alteration. The objections did not present any information which would avouch the need formajor changes 146 in the plan. Neither was the possibility of potential political disaffection deemed significant enough to cause the Planning Committee to make any major alterations in the scheme. Government policy of non-involvement in town planning matters prevent it from making changes in the zoning scheme. As discussed later, objections may have influenced government action on the road scheme.

The absence of changes requested in city newspapers indicate that the Planning Committee was not responsive to the press.

Finally, procedures outlined in the 'Brisbane Town

Planning Act of 1959" for achieving a statutory town plan introduced the relucteint actor in town planning, the

State Government, Governor-in-Council approval was required before the plan would become law. The Government had the authority to approve the plan as submitted, or require amendments, alterations, additions, or other 374 modifications it deemed necessary.

Any action the Government took first required a review of the plan. Government policy on town planning, however, precluded the employment of any qualified town planners on the Department of Local Govemment staff. The magnanimity

^'^^8° Elizabeth, No. 18, Sec. 9. l47

of the task of reviewing the plan without persons qualified

to do so led the Department of Local Government Director

to recommend that the plan be accepted "in principle".

The government accepted this recommendation, but no

definition was given to the concept of accepting the plan

"in principle". The actions by the Government on the

town plan, however, serve to give us a definition. The

Government made no changes to the zoning scheme in the

plan. The only alterations made in the scheme were to

delete provisions which could possibly adversely affect

the Government. The provision binding the govemment to

the plan was deleted because it would subordinate the

government to the decisionsof a local authority. When

faced with two road schemes, each involving financial and

political risks, the Government chose to delay its

decision by deleting all road plans from the to\\m plan.

The State Government approved the provisions in the

town plan in which it tvas neither affected nor interested.

Provisions in which it felt it was adversely affected were deleted. Decisions on matters which involved the Govemment

financially and involved possible controversies with potential political repercussions were to be delayed as long as possible. 148

CHAPTER VI

FORMATION OF THE TOWN PLANNING LEGISLATION AND ORDINANCES

The major objection by non-governmental organizations to the town plan opened for review in I962 had been the absence of legislation for the implementation and admini­ stration of the scheme. The Chamber of Commerce, the

Chamber of Manufactures, the Queensland Real Estate

Institute, and the Property Owners' Association had all requested through the press, that the legislation be prepared immediately. Written submissions had also been made to the City Cotmcil and Government.-^

One organization, the Brisbane Development Association, met with the Premier, Mr. G.F.R, Nicklin, and the Minister for Local Government, Mr, H, Richter, on 6 August, I963 to

375 Letters to Brisbane City Cotmcil Town Clerk from Mr, L. Suggars, General Manager, Queensland Chamber of Manufactures, 6 Mar. I962. Inteirviews with Mr. C. Robertson, Secretary, Brisbame Chsunber of Commerce and Mr. H. M. Brocksidge, President, Property Owners' Association, June 1967. 149 discuss the progress of the preparation of the legislation.

On the suggestion of the delegation, Mr. Nicklin proposed that the Association foima committee to work with the

Minister during the preparation of the legislation.

Later in the same month the organization circulated a memorandum to its members which was then forwarded to the

Government stating what it believed were necessary principles and provisions in the legislation. They were that:

(a) The legislation should allow the City Council to levy a special rate of Id or l-|-d on the unimproved value of land to finance the requirements of the town plan. The Governor-in-Council should then allow the Cotmcil to raise or levy additional funds needed so long as the amount raised would not be "so severe" as to cause a flight of capital from the city.

(b) Trtien land was zoned for a public purpose, the City Cotmcil must either change the zoning to what it was before the scheme was prepared or immediately resume the land and pay compensation.

(c) The procedures for dealing with compensation claims should be streamlined and the local authority encouraged to settle compensations quickly by charging a four percent interest rate on the amount awarded between the date of restimption and the date of payment. All compensation should be paid immediately except any difference between the compensation offered by the Cotmcil and the claim of the claimant.

^"^^Letter to Mr. G. F. R. Nicklin from Mr. B. T. Tuley, President of the Brisbane Development Association, 6 Sept., 1963. 150

(d) The City Council should be responsible for the administration of the plan.

(e) The Minister should appoint a person to constitute a Local Government Court to hear appeals arising from the administration of the town plan,

(f) Under no circtimstances should the Council have the power to restime land for planning purposes when some or all of the land taken could be sold after the planning was complete. The Council's powers of resumption should be limited to restimption for public purposes in accordance with the City of Brisbane Act. If in an extreme case it is necessary for the cotmcil to be able to restime land for planning purposes: (1) there should be a state planning authority to make such restimptions; (2) if more land was taken than was necessary for the planning purpose involved then the balance should be offered for resale to the dispossessed owner at a comparable value to the price for which compensation was payable. It could be put up for public auction if he refused to repurchase the land.

(g) The City Council should not be able to alter the plan on its own motion. The submission stated that one of the main reasons that the business community supported the idea of a town plan was to be able to know with certainty what they could do with their property and to take away much of the Council's discretion in setting conditions for development and subdivision. Instead alterations should be: (1) made by the same person who heard subdivision appeals; (2) automatic when the Council declined to restime land zoned for a public or semi-public purpose; (3) open for objections and then determined by the Minister if the Cotmcil and the owner of the land agreed to the change in zoning. If the Council refused an application by an owner to rezone land, the owner should be entitled to appeal to the Minister whose decision should be final« 151

(h) Periodic alterations to the town plan should be open forobjections.

(i) Lawful non-conforming uses should be allowed to extend to the whole of the land and land develop­ ment owned by the owner at the date the plan came into force without Cotmcil approval. This would allow for planned expansions. (j) Rating of land should be in conformity with the Council's zoning.

(k) Subdivision of land in future urban or non-urban zones should only be prevented if "the public interest overwhelmingly demands that his (the land owner's) private rights should give way to that overwhelming public interest".

(l) Site-use applications should not be required if an industrialist wants to use his land for the purpose for which it was zoned.

(m) The legislation should be framed to ensure that the Cotmcil has the right to impose reasonable condi­ tions and allow for appeals against the exercise of the Council's discretionary powers.

(n) There should be provisions for preserving historical buildings, (o) Colonnading should not be made compulsory without compensation,

(p) The Council should not have power to set up parking buildings.

(q) A capital development comraission should be established to develop state governraent property in the city. 377

Memorandum to members of the Brisbane Development Association from Mr. T. H. A. Cross, President, 17 Sept 1963. 152

Only two organizations, the Chamber of Commerce and

the Chamber of Manufactures, had presented any proposals

which differed from the proposals by the Association.

Both of these organizations wanted the administration of

the plan to be under the authority of an independent T78 commission instead of the City Council. The Chamber

of Manufactures believed that a "standing" comraission

representing industry and commerce and not an elected

body subject to frequent changes of policy should

administer the plan. 379 The Chamber of Coraraerce agreed

that a coramission should administer the scherae. It felt

the City Council should not be the authority because it

was a vested interest which would cause itto transfer

its liabilities and responsibilities to developers and

prxvat• 4.e enterprxse^ • . 380 o Q 1 Work on the enacting legislation began in 1964.

By this time the Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee had submitted its recommendations on the areas it

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Presidential Address delivered by Mr. N. Ellemor, President, 19 Sept., I963, and letter to Mr. G.F.R. Nicklin from Mr. R. Forsyth, President, Chamber of Manufactures, 30 May, 1963. ^"^^Ibid, 38°ib£d. -^Interview with Mr. M, MacNamara, 153

oO p believed required legislation. The Minister then

approached the Director of the Department of Local.

Government, Mr. M. MacNamara, and asked him to begin

drafting the act. The final provisions and form of the

town planning act were completed by Mr. MacNamara and

the parliamentary draftsman.-^ -^

Members of the Government parties in the State

Parliament were the only other persons with knowledge of

the provisions being included in the act. Members interest­

ed in particular Ministries, in this case the Local Govem­

ment Department and the town planning legislation, comprise

committees which meet with the Minister to discuss the

general provisions of acts being prepared. In addition,

in this case, suggestions for the enacting legislation 384 had been discussed during inter-party caucuses. The committee fromthe Brisbane Development Association,

suggested during the meeting with the Premier, was never

invited by the Minister to discuss the legislation during 385 the preparation of the act.

Interviews with Mr. L. Guthrie and Mr. R. Cummings. ^ -^Interview with Mr. M. MacNamara. -^Interview with Mr. W, D. Lickiss, M.L.A., Mt. Coot-tha, Aug., 1967. ^^Letter to Mr. G.F.R. Nicklin from Mr. T.H.A. Cross, President, Brisbane Development Association, l4 Aug., 1964. 154

The bill was introduced on 3 March 1964. The

Government intended that the act would go no further theui

the first reading then lapse with the end of the «3 Q Z^ session. This would allow the public an opportunity

to review the act and indicate its objections to the

Governraent. It then gave the Governraent an opportunity to

judge public reaction to its proposals, and, if any

changes were to be made, the bill could be redrafted and

introduced as a new bill in the next session.

By the proposed act, the Brisbane City Council was

the authority charged with the "administration, imple­ mentation, and enforcement of the plan". The City

Council was to review the plain five years after it came 389 into force and every five years thereafter. If, as the result of the review, or at any other time the

Cotincil wished to make an amendment to the plan it was first to apply to the Minister for such an amendment to the plan. A public notice was to be given concerning the proposed amendment and objections received. The proposed amendment, the objections received, and recommendations

^^ Qld. Pari. Deb., 1964, Vol. CCXXXV, p. 2620, 18 Mar. •^ Interview with Mr. S. R. Ramsden, M.L.A., Merthyr, Aug,, 1967. •^ "The Brisbane Town Plan Act", introduced 18 Mar. 1962, failed to pass first reading. Sec 5. ^^^Ibid,, Sec. 6. 155 of the Council on the objections were then to be forwarded 390 to the Minister for Govemor-in-Council approval.

Amendments could also be made by the Minister, The procedure for this method of alteration required the

Minister to give public notice of his intent to amend the scheme and receive and consider objections from the public before giving Governor-in-Cotmcil approval to the proposed amendment.39 1

Requirements for requiring land in the future urban zone were, except where the Governor-in-Council exempted the Cotmcil from complying, that the City Cotmcil had to have fixed by an authorized surveyor:

(a) the boundaries of every catchment area involved in the rezoning; (b) the location of land for road purposes, other than subdivisional roads; (c) the boundaries of each zone in which any part of the land is proposed to be included.392

The Council was to state in writing the grounds on which it had determined that the rezoning was consistent with the objectives of the plan and in particular regard to:

390it>id.

^^•"•Ibid., Sec. 7.

^^^Ibid., Sec. 8. 156

(a) the public demand in the locality and in other localities; (b) the suitability of the land for the use in question; and (c) the immediate and future costs to the Council in respect to the provision and extension of services required for the development of the land.

The statement was then to be forwarded to the Minister who, if he approved, initiated the procedure for Ministerial amendment of the plan. 394 Any person whose application to rezone was refused by the City Cotincil could appeal to th.e court established by the act. If the court allowed the appeal it was to then order the City Council to begin the procedure of amendment by applying to the Minister,39 5

The City Cotmcil was not to approve of any application to subdivide land in a non-urban or future urban zone tintil it was satisfied:

(a) that the object of subdividing was to enable the development and use of the land (bona fide) for a purpose for which land in the zone in question could be used; and (b) that the subdivision would not enable land to be developed and used for any purpose other than provided in the zone.-'-^

A land owner could receive a town planning certificate stating any affects on his land by the provisions of the plan by applying to the City Council, 397 Compensation

39^Ibid. ^^^Ibid., Sec. 9. 3^^Ibid., Sec. 10, ^^^Ibid., Sec. 12. 157

was to be available to any Ismdowner whose estate was

injuriously affected (l) by the coming into operation

of any provision contained in the plan, or (2) by any

prohibition or restriction imposed by or under the plan.

Compensation for claims on land included in special uses

"A" zone, special uses "B" zone, a proposed open space

zone or an existing open space zone, or which was affected

by a proposed road (not being a road widening) could not

be received tintil:

(a) the land was first sold after the plan came into force; and/or (b) the Council refused an application made under the plan for permission to use the land or erect a building or other structure for a purpose which was permissible tmder the plan.

Furthermore, compensation was only to be awarded by the

Court where:

(a) the land was sold, the Court was satisfied that - (1) the owner of the land sold the land at a lower price than he might have reasonably expected to receive had there been no prohibitions or restrictions resulting from the plan; and (2) the owner sold the land in good faith and took reasonable steps to obtain a fair and reasonable price for his land; and/or (b) the Court was satisfied that the City Cotmcil had refused an application (as aforesaid) made in good faith.398

3^^Ibid., Sec 13. 158

Owners of any property affected by the plan were to notify the City Council if they intended to sell it. 399

Compensation was not to be payable:

(a) for any structure erected after 3 December 1959 tinless such work had been permitted by the Council; (b) when land was injuriously affected by a provision in the plan, which was substantially the same as any provision existing before the plem; (c) as the result of restrictions on the space about buildings or limits on the size of allotments, the number of buildings or other structures to be erected or the height, floor space, design, external appearance, or character of buildings; (d) because the plan prohibited or restricted the use of land or the erection or use of a building for a particular purpose, unless the applicant could establish he had a legal right immediately before the plan came into force to use the land for a purpose which was now prohibited; (e) in respect of anything done in contravention of the plan; (f) in respect of anything done in contravention of any ordinance or decision by the Cotincil during the preparation ofthe scheme; (g) on realignments except tmder the provisions of the "The Local Govemment Acts, 1936 to 1964"; (h) in respect of the affect of section ten (conditions for approval of subdivisions on non-urban and future urban zones) on any estate or interest in land.^00

The onus of proving that compensation was not payable in 401 any case was upon the City Council. Claims were required to be made within twelve months after the date the claim

^^^Ibid., Sec. 13,

^^^Ibid.. Sec. l4. 401_ . , Ibxd. 159

arose. If the Cotmcil failed toraak:e a decision on the

claim within forty days or if the applicant was not

satisfied with the decision he could appeal to the

n 4. ^02

Court.

In assessing compensation, the amount was to be a sum

equal to the difference between the market value of the

estate immediately after the time the plan came into

operation and what would have been the market value of

that estate or interest if the provision in the plan

affecting the same had not come into operation. Any modification of the injurious affection as the result of

the plan was to be taken into account. Any benefit accruing from the restimption of Ismd tinder the plan to any other lands the property owner had were to be detract- 403 ed from the compensation received. The City Council had the option of resuming land under the provisions of the town plan or tmder the "City of Brisbane Improveraent

Acts 1916 to 1953". Compensation under the City of

Brisbane Improvements Acts was assessed according to the valuation of the land on the date of the notice of 405 resumption takxng the land.

402 Ibid., Sec. 15* Ibid., Sec. I6. 404-r^, . . Ibxd. ^^7°George V, No. 24, Sec. 35 160

Appeal provisions provided that:

(a) any applicaint for approval to open any new road or to subdivide land may appeal to the court against or decision by the City Cotmcil;^06 (b) anyone could appeal to the court against the decision of the City Cotmcil on an application for approval, consent or permission to use land or buildings or erect buildings for a purpose permitted in the plan;^^7 (c) the City Cotmcil had forty days to decide on applications made to it. This time could be extended for longer than forty days by the Minister. The City Cotmcil was to notify the Minister of its decision within seven days of making its decision. The applicant was to then have thirty days in which to lodge an appeal.^ °

Third party rights were to be protected by allowing objections to all development proposals which required the decision of the City Cotmcil. If the Cotmcil intended to approve the application it was required to notify each objector in writing of its intention and withhold approval for thirty days. During the thirty day period any objector could lodge an appeal to the Court. The Cotmcil could not then deal with the application tintil the appeal 409 was deteirrained by the Court. Redevelopment powers were included in the Act, The

Cotmcil could take any land required for any purpose of

"The Brisbane Town Planning Act", ££, cit,. Sec, 18, "^Ibid,, Sec. 19. 408_^. , Ibxd. ^^Ibid., Sec. 22, cf, Hewison, A., "Third-Party Appeals in Brisbane," Australian Planning Institute Journal. Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1967. 161

the plan, whether it was required irmnediately or not.

It had the powers of the "City of Brisbane Improveraent

Acts, 1916 to 1933" to carry out the restimptions. It

could specifically take any land required for development

or redevelopment. It could restime any land required for

controlling, restricting, limiting, or prohibiting access

to a road. Either the whole or part of the lands resumed

could be sold with Governor-in-Cotmcil approval. If such lemds were sold before redevelopment they could only be

sold under the terms of redevelopment plans by the City

Council. No plans for redevelopment tmder the town plan were to become effective in any area until the land was resumed by the Council,

The City Cotincil was to have power to make all such ordinances necessary to implement the town plan and provide for regulation smd control the administration and execution of the plan. The Cotmcil could also make ordinances creating an Advisory Committee to advise the 411 Council on town planning matters. A Local Government

Court was established to hear appeals tmder the plan.

The Court was to be constituted of a District Court judge

4lO Ibid.. Sec. 23. 4ll Ibid., Sec, 25. 162

4l2 with the same powers as a District Court, Decisions of the Court were to be final and appeals were only to 4l3 be allowed on mistakes in law. The Court could award costs by ordering that they be ascertained by the

Taxing Officer of the Supreme Court.4l 4

The first objections to the proposed act came from the Brisbame Development Association. The only provisions recommended by the Association in September I963 which had been included in the town planning act were that the

Council was to administer the plan, that there were provisions for periodic alterations, that appeals tmder the plan were to be to a Local Governraent Court and some third party rights, Mr, I. Stubbs, chairman of the

Association's committee on town planning, and Mr, J. C.

Lamb, a city solicitor, reviewed the act and submitted their recommendations to the representatives on the

Association's town planning committee. Their objections made no mention of recommendations made in I963, such as for provisions outlining the means of financing the scheme, requiring rates to correspond to zones, dealing

4l2 Ibid.. Sec. 27. ^^Ibid.. Sec. 28. 4l4lbid,. Sec. 3I. 163 with non-conforming uses or suggesting a state planning authority to be responsible for development works. Instead, they proposed definitions and procedural amendments to the provisions in the proposed act. The objectives of their proposals were to limit the powers of the City Council and enhance the position of the property owner by increasing the bases of award­ ing compensation for injurious effects caused by the plan and expanding appeal rights tmder the scheme.4l -5^

A conclusion in their submissions did mention that the

Chamber of Manufactures "took strongest exception" to the failure of the act to include provisions dealing wxth non-conforraxn^ • g uses. ^16

Representatives from thirteen organizations who were members of the Brisbane Development Association were then invited to meet to discuss the proposals by Mr. Stubbs cind Mr. Lamb to try to formulate a common policy on the provisions of the act. The submissions resulting from these meetings were then

4l5 Letter to members of the Brisbane Development

Association from Mr. L. J. Gardiner, Manager, March 1967

Ibxd. 164

forTirarded to the Government.4l 7

Additional amendments to the suggestions made in

March were intended to clarify and extend the reason

for granting compensation. It was noted that while

the City Council was to be botind by the plan, there

were no provisions whereby the Cotmcil could be

prosecuted or penalized for not adhering to it.4l 8

While making no alternate proposals, the Association

reflected the influence of the Chamber of Manufactures

and Chamber of Commerce in stating that the provisions

giving the City Council authority to administer the 4l9 plan gave "rise to concern". The Association

reasserted its submission of I963 that the Local

Authority pay interest at ordinary bank rates on the

compensation from the time the restimption took place until the property owner received payment. 420

417 Memorandum to members of Brisbane Development Assoc­ iation, 7 Aug., 1964. Organizations with representatives on the Brisbane Development Association's Town Planning Committee were the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, The Instit­ ution of Surveyors, the Property Owners' Association, The Queensland Allied Building Trades Association, the Queens­ land Chamber of Manufactures, the Retailers Association of Queensland, the Royal National Association, the Queensland Master Builders Association, the Institute of Quantity Surveyors, the Australian Planning Institute, and the Queensland Law Society.

''20lbid. 165

The proposals by the Brisbane Development Assoc­

iation on legislation had been forwarded to the Govem­

ment as written submissions. The Association and other

comratmity organizations also raet with the State Premier

and Minister of Local Governraent to discuss the provisions

of the act. A delegation of representatives frora the

Chamber of Manufactures met with the Premier on 27 2i p 1 August 1963 to discuss the provisions of the plan.

Representatives from the Chamber of Commerce had also

discussed the provisions with members of the Governraent.42 2

The Minister for Local Government at first declined a

request to meet with representatives from the Brisbane 423 development Association's town planning committee.

Their written submissions were forwarded to the Premier,

Mr. Nicklin. In an accorapanying letter, the president

of the Association, Mr, T. H, A. Cross, explained that

the submissions had been sent to the Premier because it

appeared to him that the Minister had no intention to 424 meet with the representatives from the Association.

421 Letter to Mr. L. Gardiner, Manager, Brisbane Development Association from Mr. L. Suggars, General Manager, Chamber of Manufactures, 6 Sep., I963. 422 Interview with Mr. C. Robertson. 423 Interview with Mr. L. Suggars. 424 Letter to Mr. G. F. R. Nicklin frora Mr. H.A. Cross, 14 Aug., 1964. 166

The Minister and Director of the Department of Local

Government later did discuss the provisions of the act with representatives from the Association after meraber organizations made approaches to the Premier requesting the meeting. 425 The non-governmental organizations also made written submissions to, and met with, members of the Government party.

Members of the Government party in the State Parlia­ ment representdLng electorates in the Greater Brisbane area had formed a committee with the approval of the 426 Premier to review the legislation. Representatives from non-governmental organizations including the Institute of Surveyors, the Chamber of Conmierce, the Chamber of

Manufactures, the Institute of Engineers, the Brisbeine

Development Association, the Institute of Architects and the Planning Institute met with the committee and presented 427 their submissions on the legislation. The members of the committee then proceeded to draft recommended amend- raents to the legislation based on the submissions of the . ^. 428 organxzatxons.

^Interviews with Mr, L* Suggars, Mr. T.H.A. Cross, Aug,, 1967, Mr, R.W. Voller, May I967, and letter to Mr, H. Richter from Mr, T,H.A. Cross, 2 Sep., 1964. 426 Interview with Mr, S.R. Ramsden, 'Interviews with Mr. N. Lee, M.L.A., Yeronga, Sep., 1967, Mr, W, Lickiss, and Mr. S.R. Ramsden. Idem. 167

In the main, the committee adopted the amendments proposed in the subraissions of the Brisbane Development

Association. In addition they requested that the Act not be proclaimed tintil the supporting ordinances had been prepared. 429 The committee emphasized that the legislation should more adequately ensure that the Advisory

Committee, created by the Act, ftinction only in an advisory capacity and not relieve the Council of its town planning responsibility. 430 The corajoiittee claimed that all organizations which met with it had requested that appeals be heard by a comraission instead of a single judge. 431 The Chamber of Coraraerce elaborated on the recoramendation suggesting that the coraraission have a lawyer as chairman with other merabers being a valuer, a surveyor, an architect or an engineer who would sit with the chairman either individually or in groups according 432 to the nature of the appeal. They asserted that such a comraission would be a better body to hear appeals than the proposed single District Court judge because of its wider range of knowledge.Th433 e committee presented its

^^Submissions to Government by parlieimentary committee, n.d., p. 19. ^^°Ibid., p. 16 ^^•'•Ibid., p. 19. -^^Annual Report, Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, 1964. '*33ibid. 168 submissions to the Government in meetings with Mr. T,

Hiley, State Treasurer, Mr. H. Richter, Mr. M, MacNamara, 434 and Mr. J. Sewell.

The town planning legislation was subsequently introduced in State Parliament on 24 November 1964.

Seven changes had been made in the Act presented earlier in March, six of them embodying recommendations of the parliamentary committee. The alterations now required that the plan be reviewed three years after the totirti plan 435 came into effect. Compensation was now to be provided if a landowner could prove that no one would purchase 436 land affected by the plan. Neither was the Act proclaimed. Other changes, however, had no effect on the provisions dealing with reasons for the payment of compensation and appeals rights; the provisions causing the greatest concern to the commtmity organizations and parliamentary comraittee.

The position of the members of the parliamentary committee on the legislation was stated by Mr. S. R.

Ramsden (M.L.A. Merthyr), chairman of the committee.

434 •^ Interview with Mr. N. Lee. ^^13° Elizabeth No. 70, Sec. 5. ^ Ibid,. Sec, 13. 169

Speaking on the Bill in Parliament, he said, ".,,though

the bill is not perfect, it is one...with which I am 437 perfectly happy". He then, however, criticized the

Act for not requiring the City Cotmcil to give a notice in writing to all land owners affected by amendments 438 proposed to the plan. Another member of the Govem­ ment party, Mr. W. D. Lickiss (M.L.A, Mt. Coot-tha) disagreed with the provisions giving the Governor-in- Cotmcil powers over the decisions of the Local Government Court (when because decisions in successful appeals against the City Council were not final but were required to receive Govemor-in-Council approval before having effect). -^" Mr. Lickiss and Mr. C. M. Hughes (M.L.A, Kurilpa) questioned the failure of the act to provide compensation for land affected by colonnading and 440 realignment provisions in the plan. The members of the comraittee also favoured the creation of a state town planning authority divided into regional planning 441 districts.

Members of the opposition Labor Party criticized

^'''Qld. Pari. Deb., 1964,, Vol CCXXXVII, p. 1786, 24 Nov. ^^Ibid., p. 1787 ^^^Ibid., p, 1800 ^ IM^., P- 2111 ^^^Ibid., p. 1786. 170

the government for delaying in the preparation of the

legislation and objected to the powers of the Local 442 Government Court. They argued that by allowing

the Court to makie decision on the technical application

of the town plan through the appeal processes would

actually take the ftinction of town planning away from 443 the City Cotmcil and bestow it on the Courts.

They suggested, instead, that appeals should be main­

tained on a judicial basis from the City Council to

the Town Planning Committee and then to the Local 444 Govemment Department. The act, however, was passed

without amendments.

Preparation of the town planning ordinances had

been started by the City Council soon after the completion

of the town planning scherae. By the beginning of I965

they still had not been forwarded to the Government

for Govemor-in-Council approval. One of the causes

of the delay was disagreements within the City Cotmcil 445 on provisions for the ordinances. An impasse had also occurred in preliminary discussions between the

442 Ibid., pp. 1785 and 1798. 443TX,.Ibxd^ , 444 ^Ibid., p. 1791 ^Interview with Mr. J. C. Slaughter. Neither Mr. Slaughter, nor any City Councilmen interviewed stated what these points of disagreement may have been. 171

Government and City Council, The Government would not agree to certain requirements desired by Lord Mayor

Jones, such as previa.ons requiring industrial buildings 446 to be set back twenty feet from the property boundary.

Early in I965, however, the Premier, Mr, Nicklin, decided the ordinances were to be finished by the end of the year, and the Minister proceeded to have the

Local Govemment Department staff begin the preparation 447 of the ordinances. The City Cotincil Town Clerk, Mr.

J, C. Slaughter, then decided to approach the Premier to seek to re-establish Governmental co-operation in securing the ordinances. He asked the Premier to defer the ordinances being prepared by the Government, arguing that if the task was not done properly at that time, it would never be done. He proposed that the Premier appoint a cormnittee of himself, representing the City

Council, Mr. M. MacNamara, representing the Governraent, and Mr. J, Sewell, as an expert in local government law 448 in Queensland to prepare the ordinancesmce! . Mr. Nicklin 449 agreed and appointed the comraittee.

446_Idem- . 447 Interviews with Mr, Macl'Jamara and Mr. J. Slau£?hter, and Courier Mail, l4 Sep., I965. 448 Interviews with Mr, J,C. Slaughter. Idem, 172

The Committee completed the draft ordinances which

were then submitted to the City Cotmcil. Administration

of the ordinances was to be by the City Council's 450 Registration Board, A "Tot^m Planning Advisory

Committee" was created with seven to nine members to

advise the Council in its exercise of town planning 451 powers and responsibilities. Requirements were set

for the erection of service stations, including a provision that the Council could demand, free of cost, 452 a truncation at a right angled corner. Owners of shops and shopping centres cotild be required to do road

and drainage works adja-cent to their property. They were also to provide four square feet of parking space for every square foot of floor space used for retail 453 sales. When an applicsint to subdivide proposed to do so in stages, he was required to obtain approval for 454 the overall plan and thereafter for each stage.

Conditions were enumerated for which the registration

Board was not to approve as proposed subdivision, i.e,, low lying land, no sewerage or septic tank, inadequate

450 City of Brisbane proposed to\^n planning ordinances, Oct., 1965. 451Ibid . ^^^ibid] . 453'Ibid" . Ibxd. 173

road system, etc. 455 The subdivider was to pay £250

($500) for sewerage and £90 (|180) for water reticulation 456 per allotment. He was further required to dedicate

to the Council free of cost a road one hundred links wide

adjacent to any watercourse contiguous to the subdivision

in addition to any requirements for contributions to 457 parks. Standards and conditions for road and drainage

works were established and the works were required to be 458 guaranteed for sxx months)nth! . Road alignments were

listed for ten roads.45 9

Lord Mayor Jones, was still not satisfied with the

provisions in the proposed ordinances. He agreed with

what had been prepared but wanted additional requirements

to be included. One of the provisions he desired, the

twenty feet set back on industrial buildings, was rejected because the Government felt that it could not get the

Government party's mtmicipal members to accept such a provision. The Government thought that the provision

'*56rbid. ^'^Ibid. "SSlbid. 459 Ibid. Alignments were set on Coronation Drive, Logan Road, Magazine Street, Montague Road, Ipswich Road, Park Road, Collingwood Street, Tate Street, Elliott Street and Immara Street, Interview with Mr. J. C. Slaughter. 174 would be too contentious to include and told the City

Cotmcil to delete it and go ahead and get the rest of 461 the ordinsmces passed. The Town Clerk convinced the

Lord Mayor that he should agree to the ordinances by

arguing that they did give the Council some powers to

set certain requirements for development easing the

financial burden on the Council, His position was that

to have some of the ordinances was better than having none. 462

The ordinances were opened for review and object­ ions in October I965. Again non-governmental organiza­ tions submitted their objections to the ordinances both individually and in common through the Brisbane

Development Association, The objectives of the submissions were to limit the requirements which could be demanded by the Council for site-use and building permit approvals and to eliminate procedures which could possibly cause delays in dealing with applications.

The organizations on the Brisbane Development

Association's town planning comraittee objected to certain matters:

Idem.

Idem, 175

(a) The four square feet parking space required for every square foot of retail floor space in shopping centres and drive-in hotels was too harsh. Instead, they recommended that it should be at the discretion of the Cotincil to lower the requirements, (b) There was no reason for subdividers to dedicate to the City Council land fronting on a water course or bay without compensation. (c) x^ive acres was too large for a minimum subdivision in non-urban zones. (d) Truncation requirements should be open to the discretion of the Cotmcil. (e) The City Council could disapprove of any proposed subdivision if any existing dwelling or a dwelling which could be erected on any allotments in the subdivision could have an undesirable effect. (f) The Town Planning iclvisory Conmiittee was appointed by and sat at the pleasure of the City Council, They proposed instead, that the members be appointed by the Governor-in-Council for three year terms,^"3

They also opposed the £250 and £90 charge per allotment

for sewerage and water reticulation. The Chamber of

Commerce proposed that when subdividers wanted to sewer

land, they should do so by loaning the City Cotincil the

money to complete the works. The money would t;:en be

repaid when the Cotincil received increased revenue 464 resultxng from the expenditure. The Real instate

Institute said that the City Cotincil should not be able

463 Letter to Mr, J,C, Slaughter, Town Cleric, from Mr. T. H, A. Cross, 8 Nov., I965. Courier Mail, 20 Oct., I965. 176

to require sewerage works for subdivision approvals at 465 all. The Brisbane Development Association agreed

that a developer could be required to provide sewerage

in the subdivision at cost but did not believe that he

should be required to contribute towards the head works

and substantial works outside of the subdivision.

The Chamber of Manufactures objected to a provision

requirang industries to provide one parking space for

every four employees if the industry employed over fifty

persons. They claimed that the provision would force 467 larger plants in the inner suburbs out of busxness.

The City Council opposition party, the Citizen's

Mtmicipal Organization, unsuccessfully moved in the

Council that:

(a) major decisions of the town planning committee should go to the aldermen-in-cotmcil for approval; (b) a woman should be included on the Town Planning Advisory Committee; (c) that subdividers pay the actual costs for .^o providing sewerage and water reticulation.

The non-governmental organizations again approached

the committee formed by the Government party

465 Interview with Mr. N. Lee. 466 Mr. T. LetteH. Ar. Crossto Mr,. 8J. Nov.C. ,Slaughter I965. , Town Clerk, from 467'^Courie r Mail, 18 Oct., I965. 468 Ibid.. 13 Oct., 1965. 177 backbenchers representing municipal electorates. This committee formulated its proposals on the ordinances from the representations from the organizations and individuals in the community and submitted them to

State Cabinet on 21 October 1965. They asked for changes limiting the Council's powers to demand trunca­ tions and recommended that where realignments were imposed the City Council must restime the land affected 470 wxthxn fxve years and pay compensation. The Govem­ ment then forwarded the proposals to the City Council. The reconmiendations received by the Council included:

(1 that the aldermen-in-council would have powers to review decisions of the town planning conimittee; (2 that the fee payable for certificates be determined by the Establishment and Co-ordination Committee; (3 that the Cotincil should seal and return subdivision plans within fourteen days; (k the proposal that the subdivider should only pay for the actual costs of providing sewerage and water reticulation; (5 further, that the subdivider should only pay for the reticulation of the estate and not for headworks; (6 that the oivner of subdivided land should not donate land for electricity transformer sites; (7 that subdividers should not be required to transfer free of cost land adjacent to every water course; (8 that land to be surrendered in a road widening be limited to the land required;

469 ^ Ibid. , 22 Oct., 1965, and interview with l^.r. N. Lee. 470 Incerview with Mr. N. Lee. 178

(9) the requirements for oivners of proposed shops and shopping centres to do road and drainage work should be reduced; (10) that parking requirements should be lowered for industrial establishments.^71

The recommendation for aldermanic review of

Registration Board decisions created the only open dispute among the majority party in City Council, the

Municipal Labor Party. Mr. Richter thought that such a review would possibly reduce the number of appeals to 472 the Local Govemment Court. Two mtmicipal Labor aldermen claimed that the aldermen represented the people and by giving them the right to review Registration

Board decisions it would give citizens an opportunity 473 for their cases to more easily be heard. Lord Mayor

Jones, however, did not agree to the amendment and the proposal was defeated in the Council,47 4 Following discussions between the Lord Mayor and Minister, the ordinances were passed by the City Cotmcil in December

1965. Changes made in the proposed ordinances had been:

^•"•Courier Mail. 12 Nov., I965.

"^^Ibid., 1 Dec, I965.

^^Ibid., 2 Dec, I965.

474^.,.Ibxd,, 179

(1) The area in truncations which the City Cotmcil could demand free of cost frora service stations was decreased. (2) Shop owners on unpaved roads could only be required to pave ten feet instead of sixteen. (3) Drainage required for a shopping centre could only be in respect to the land imraediately involved. (4) Parking space required at shopping centres and drive-in hotels was decreased to three square feet for one square foot of retail floor space, (5) Parking spaces to be required for industries was to be at the Registration Board's discretion. (6) The City Cotmcil could not disapprove of any proposed subdivision on the basis that a structure involved might have an "undesirable aspect", (7) The City Council could not now require that land be dedicated free by a subdivider for road widening, beautification, or an esplanade along any water course or bay. (8) The Cotmcil could now only require the actual costs be paid for water and sewerage reticulation^ The subdivider was still required to pay for headworks though. 180

CHAPTER VII

ANALYSIS OF THE PREPARATION OF THE TOWN PLANNING LEGISLATION AND ORDINANCES

As has been shown, preparation of a town planning scheme for Brisbane was begun by the Govemment with the enactment of "The Brisbane Town Planning Act of

1959". The Government had taken the initiative to act after receiving representations from the Brisbane City

Cotmcil desiring wider powers and conditions in dealing with town planning matters and from non-governmental organizations wanting to restrict those powers. The scheme was subsequently prepared by the Cotincil and altered by the Government.

The proposed town planning scheme now required legislation and ordinances for its implementation and administration. The legislation would be drafted by the Government and needed the approval of State

Parliament. The ordinances were to be drafted and approved by the City Council, and then submitted to the 181

Government which would table them in Parliament. Within ten days, State Parliament could vote to disallow provisions in the ordinances. The ordinances then required Governor-in-Council approval, Decision-malcing contestants from the community might influence the provisions of the ordinances by exerting influence on these actors.

What were the roles of these contestants in the decision-making process involved in the formation of the legislation and ordinances?

The Minister for Local Government, Mr. U. Richter, was the Minister responsible for the preparation of the town planning legislation. Anyone attempting to influence the provisions of the enacting legislation during^ their preparation could so do by their capacity to influence him. In I962 Mr. Richter indicated in reply to a question in the State Parliament that the Greater

Brisbane Town Planning Committee, controlled by the

Lord Mayor and City Cotincil, had been charged by a previous minister, Ilr, J. Heading, with the responsibility of recommending amendments needed in the state's town 475 planning law. He further indicated that v/ork on the

^"^^Qld. Pari. Deb., I962, Vol. CCXXXII, p. 2133, 28 Feb, 182 legislation would not begin until he had received the 476 Committee's recommendations. The Planning Committee subsequently recommended that legislation was required in twelve areas.47 7 Interviews indicated that neither the City Cotmcil nor the Greater Brisbane Town Planning

Committee was any further involved in the preparation of the legislation.47 8 The influence of the Brisbane

City Cotmcil on the legislation was limited to the effect of the areas it defined as needing legislation in the town plsmning report.

As was shown in chapters two and three, non-govern­ mental organizations were the only contestants in the decision-making process in the commtmity to attempt to encourage the Government to prepare the legislation.

One organization, the Brisbane Development Association, tried to participate directly in the preparation of the

Act. Members of the Association formed a committee, with the approval of the Premier, to confer with the

Minister during the drafting of the Bill. In addition, they, the Chamber of Manufactures, and Chamber of

Ibxd,

^^Report (1961) o£. cit.. p. 4.

'''interviews with Mr. J. C. Slaughter and Mr. R, Cummings. 183

Commerce forwarded written submissions to the Government outlining their proposals on what they believed was necessary for the legislation. The comraittee failed to have any effect in the preparation of the legis­ lation when the Minister did not invite thera to consult with hira. Neither did the written submissions to the

Government appear significantly to influence the provisions of the Act. Recommendations by the Brisbane

Development Association in its I963 submissions included in the provisions of the Act were all consistent with previous Govemment town planning policies. Having town planning appeals determined by a Court of Law had been proposed by the State Premier, Mr, Nicklin, as early as 479 1952. '^ Making the City Cotmcil the authority to enforce and administer the plan was consistent with

Local Government policy of keeping town planning a local authority responsibility. Recommendations which, if accepted, would have required changes in Government policy, such as proposals on financial provisions, the request for the creation of a state planning authority and the Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Manufactures'

''^Qld. Pari. Deb., 1952, Vol, CCV, p, I698, 3 Dec. 184 recommendation that the plan be administered by an independent authority were not included.

As was also shown in previous chapters, neither the Minister nor any member of State Cabinet had either the training or appeared to be interested in becoming involved in town planning. Action by the State Govem­ ment, hotvever, was now demanded, so the matter of drafting the legislation was largely given to the

Department Director, Mr. MacNamara. Mr. MacNeimara, thus, became influential when delegated the task of preparing the act. There were some discussions on the provisions of the Act between the Government and its mtmicipal backbench merabers. The discussions, however, were only on the general principles of the Act, and 481 not on its specific provisions. The later opposition by the backbench Merabers to the provisions in the Act seem to indicate that they had little or no influence in the preparation. The legislation introduced in

State Parliament in March 1964 was the product of the

Government's previous policies on town planning and

480 Interview with Mr, M, MacNaraara, 481 Interviews with Mr, N, Lee, Mr, W, P, Lickiss, and Mr, S. R. Ramsden. 185

local govemment and the influence of the Department

Director to whom the task of drafting the legislation

had been delegated.

Though actors outside of the Govemment and its

department, such as the non-governmental organizations

and the backbench Merabers, could not directly influence

the provisions proposed for the Act they could affect

the provisions by attempting to have them amended in

the State Parlieiment. The Govemment averted any such

attempts and accompanying dissension by agreeing to

take the proposed Bill no further than the first

reading and then allowing it to lapse with the end 482 of the legislative session. This would allow

objections to be heard from the community and backbench

merabers. The Govemment could then consider the raerit

of the criticisms and judge public reaction to the

proposals. Changes could then be made in the Act before it was re-introduced, thereby rainimizing public

disaffection and potential conflict in State Parliament.

Alterations could be made on the merit of the proposals

or when a negative public or parliamentary reaction represented to the Govemment a greater political cost to keep a provision than it was willing to pay.

482 Qld. Pari. Deb,, I962,, Vol, CCXXXVI, p. 2616, 18 Mar. 186

The City Cotmcil was not consulted by the Govem­

ment during the preparation of the town planning

legislation, neither did it become involved in making

any representations after the proposed Act was intro­

duced in State Parliaraent. In I965 Lord Mayor Jones

stated that he believed that any Planning Advisory

Committee should be separate from the City Cotincil, but there were no indications in interviews that the

Council made any attempts to encourage the inclusion 483 of such a provision in the act. The proposed act

outlined the Cotmcil's town planning powers and the

Council seemed to make no effort to have them altered.

The local press did not attempt to exert influence 484 on the provisions of the legislation. References xn the newspapers were limited to reports on the proposed provisions of the Act, reports on submissions made by community organizations and occasional replies by the

-^Courier Mail. 13 Oct., 1965. The researcher v/as not granted an interview with Lord Mayor Jones, but interviews with Mr. J. C, Slaughter, Mr, C. J. Greenfield and Mr. M. MacNamara indicated that no representations were made by the City Council to the Governraent concerning the enacting legislation.

This opinion was also put forward by Mr, N, Lee and Mr. M, MacNamara in interviews. 187

Minister. Neither of two editorials in the Courier

Mail made any reference to specific provisions in the

Act. One agreed that the Government should allow the public tirae to discuss the act's proposals.48 5 The other called for the Govemment to give the City Council adequate powers so that the Cotmcil would not be required to use extra-legal methods to achieve develop- 486 ment control. Bias in the local press still appeared to remain a ftinction of the statements made available to it by the contestants in the decision­ making process.

The town planning Act did not become an issue in the State Parliament elections of I963 or City Council 487 elections of I965. One attempt was made to organize persons in the electorate disaffected by City Council land-use controls in a body naraed the League for

Citizens Rights, The organization urged reform by attempting to publicize what it considered misuse by the City Council of the Council's land use control powers and by presenting remedial subraissions to the

^Courier Mail. 20 Mar., 1964,

Ibid.. 27 Nov., 1964. 487 Review of election stateraents and editorials xn the Courier Mail. 188

488 Government. Its membership and support, however,

soon proved transitory and the organization failed to 489 achieve its goals. The electors failed to exert any direct influence on the town planning legislation when its provisions did not become an election issue.

Neither was the attempt by the League for Citizens

Rights at organizing electors specifically disaffected with totvn planning matters recognized as a large enough representative body of potential political disaffection to cause the Government to include or alter provisions in the town planning legislation.

Commtmity organizations had been used as contest­ ants in the decision-making process to represent sections of the community wishing to limit and define the land-use control powers of the Brisbane City Cotincil

The legislation to be enacted was the framework of these powers. Organizations now requested the legislation be amended expanding the appeal rights to City Cotincil town planning decisions, defining and limiting the

City Council's land-use controls, and increasing the

488 McArthur, R., "Case-study of the League for Citizens Rights", Government Honours IV Seminar Paper, University of Queensland, I966. Ibxd. 189 reasons for compensation being made payable for injurious affects of the plan. They attempted to directly influence the Government to alter the provisions on the act. Written submissions were made by various organizations including the Chamber of

Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures, the Brisbane

Development Association, the Real Estate Institute, the Institute of Architects, and the Property Owners 490 Association. Representatives from the Chamber of

Memufactures discussed the provisions of the Act in 491 a meeting with the Premier. A delegation from the

Brisbane Development Association, at first refused, was later received by the Minister and the Local

Governraent Departraent Director after the Association 492 approached the Preraier requesting the meeting. The

Government had not been responsive to subraissions raade by the non-govemraental organizations during the prep­ aration of the legislation. Neither did it now appear to be receptive to their objectives. Thus, they turned to the Govemment backbenchers.

490 Interviews with the Presidents and Secretaries of those associations and Mr. M. MacNamara. 491 "^ Letter to Mr. L, Gardiner from Mr, L, Suggars, op, cit.. 27 Aug., 1963, 492 Interviews with Mr, T.H.A. Cross, Mr. L. Suggars, and Sir Leon Trout, 190

The Act, proposed by the Governraent, required

Parliamentary approval. The Government majority in

State Parliament was formed by a coalition of two parties, the Queensland Cotintry Party iirith twenty-six members and the Queensland Liberal Party with twenty members. The Ministers for Local Government, Mr, H,

Richter and his predecessors, Mr, J, Heading and Kr.

L, Roberts, were all merabers of the Cotintry Party.

None of these men had shown any particular interest in town planning. During their terras of office the Govern­ raent had continued the policy of limiting involvement in town planning matters, but the Governraent was also involved in finances for local authority projects, and, as mentioned, particularly concerned about the expenditures inherent in the impleraentation of a to^vn plan. These policies were reflected in the proposed enacting legislation.

Backbench merabers of the Liberal Party representing electorates in Brisbane did not a.gree with the Minister's policy on town plajining, Mr. C. M. Hughes had requested town planning legislation establishing regional planning 493 xn debates in Parliament in 1962. , -^ Other Brisbane

^\ld. Pari, Deb., I962, Vol. CCXXXII, p. 24l3, 13 Feb 191 members agreed with Mr, Hughes and further expressed dissatisfaction with provisions in the legislation 494 proposed in March 1964, Mr. S. R. Ramsden approached the Premier EOid asked that the metropolitan merabers might form a comraittee to hear objections from the commtmity and develop and submit their position on the legislation, Mr, Nicklin accepted this recommenda- tion and the committee was formed. 495

The ultimate power to influence which the back benchers could exercise would be to refuse to support the Act if the Government did not comply with their requests. This, however, would also carry high political costs on its threats to the Governraent and the coalition.

If the metropolitan backbench Merabers did not see dis­ agreements on the enacting legislation as an important enough issue to withhold support for the Government's proposals, they still might exert influence. Firstly, the Government might be induced to alter provisions in the Act by the practical and technical merit of the proposed amendments. Secondly, if the Government did

"interviews with Mr. N. Lee, Mr, W. D. Lickiss, and Mr, S, R, Ramsden.

^Interview with Mr. S. R. Ramsden. 192

not accept the amendments proposed by the backbench

Members it could cause disaffection among thera towards

the Government. The threat of this disaffection might

bring the Government to accept their amendments. This

disaffection could also have a cumulative affect in

other areas of disagreement or differences. The Govern­

ment's propensity to respond to the influence of the backbench merabers would be a function of its concern and

regard for their potential disaffection.

Non-governmental organizations including the

Brisbane Development Association, the Charaber of Coimnerce,

the Charaber of Manufactures, the Real Estate Institute,

the Institute of Architects and the Institute of Town

Planning presented written submissions and met with

the backbench Members' committee to discuss their

proposals on the act. Both the organizations and back bench Members favoured limiting the City Council's powers.

The committee was therefore responsive to the organiza­

tions' requests and adopted, in the main, the proposals

from the comratmity organizations. The coraraittee

496 The differences in the subraissions were minor and a matter of emphasis, e,g,, the number of years which should elapse before the first review of the plan and that greater assurEince should be given that the proposed Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee would only serve in an advisory capacity. 193 then conferred with four persons representing the

Government. They were the State Treasurer and Liberal

Party Leader, Mr, T, Hiley, the Minister for Local

Government, Mr. H. Richter, the Director of the Depart­ ment of Local Governraent, Mr. M, MacNamara, and the

Under-Secretary of the Treasury and former Director of the Department of Local Governraent, Mr, J.A. Sewell.49 7

The major objective of the proposals by the non­ governmental organizations and backbench committee was to enhance the position of the land owner by limiting the powers of the City Council and increasing the reasons for which compensation would be available for properties injuriously affected by the impleraentation of the town plan. These proposals were in conflict to the. policy and interests of the Government as reflec­ ted in the legislation.

Submissions from non-governmental organizations proposed a separate authority to administer the plan.

The Government, however, retained the provisions delegat­ ing the responsibility of impleraenting and adrainistering the scherae to the City Council. The non-governmental organizations and backbench committee requested that

497 Interview with Mr. N. Lee. 194

powers for undertsiking redevelopment projects in the

city be taken from the City Council and placed tmder a

state redevelopment commission. Neither proposal was

accepted as an amendment to the Act, The Govemment

was not to alter its policy of non-involvement in local

authority town planning matters.

Finances for the impleraentation of the town plan

would require the Government's approval and assistance.

A ntimber of the requests for amendments by the non­

governmental organizations and backbench comraittee were

for increasing the injurious affects of the plan for

which compensation would be payable., e.g., the resump­

tion within three years and iraraediate corapensation for

enforced colonnading. To allow for the additional

compensation requested, however, would greatly increase

the expenditures involved in irapleraenting the plan, a burden which needed to be shared by the Government.

The Government thus declined to increase the costs of

the plan for the City Cotincil or itself and only 498 granted one extension of compensation requested.

498 The Governraent amended the Act to provide corapen­ sation for a person with land eligible for corapensation under the Act if he could prove that he had tried but had not been able to sell the land. 195

One other amendment proposed by the non-governnental organizations and committee of backbenchers directl^'^ affected the Government. Under the provisions of the

Act, appeals on City Council decisions on amendments to the plan were to a Local Governraent Court. The decision of the Court, however, was not final. If the appeal was successful, the applicant then applied to the City Council to begin amendment procedures eventually requiring the approval of the Minister. 499 This, in effect, maintained the procedure established in the

"Brisbane Town Planning Act of 1959", whereby the Minister had the final decision on town planning appeals. It was now recommended that the decision of the Court be final, automatically constituting an amendment to the plan. The backbench committee argued that not only would this simplify the appeals procedure, but also would prevent the Govemment from becoming involved in local planning disputes. The Government, however, chose to retain 501 the provisions without amendment.-^

^99,,,Th e Brisbane Town Plan Act" (l964) o£. cit., Sec. I3, ^°°8^ Elizabeth II, No, 18, Sec. 11. 501, 'Members of Parliament interviewed stated that the Government gave no reason for retaining this provision. The Minister neither granted the researcher an interview nor replied to written questions relevant to this provision 196

Instead, the only proposed amendraents to the Act accepted by the Government dealt with minor procedural changes. It was accepted that the first review would be three years after the town plan came into effect rather than the five years set by the proposed Act. 502

A provision requiring land owners with property affected by the town plan to notify the City Cotmcil when they planned to sell that land was deleted. The time limit in which to lodge a claim for compensation tmder the plan was extended from twelve months to three years. 503

As it was shown, contestants in the decision-making processes were unable directly to influence the Govern­ ment during the preparation of the enacting legislation for the Brisbane Town Plan. They did have an opportunity to attempt to effect amendments in the proposed Act v/hen the Government allowed it to lapse after its introduction in State Parliament. The contestants could influence the Goveimment either by the raerit of the particular proposal or by convincing the Governraent that not to accept a proposed amendment would be more costly finan­ cially and/or politically than to include it.

^^^13° Elizabeth II, No, 60, Sec. 5.

^°^Ibid., Sec 15. 197

Non-governmental organizations were the only section of the commtmity to attempt to influence the provisions in the town planning legislation. With the exception of non-conforraing uses, they did not continue to press for provisions which they had been tinsuccessful in getting the Governraent to include during the preparation of the Act. Instead, they limited their representations to amendments to the provisions in the bills. They had, however, no additional political resources with which to influence the Government them they had during the preparation of the Act. Since they had not been effective in obtain­ ing all of the provisions they wanted in the proposed

Act with these resources, they then sought to influence the Government through an additional groups of contest­ ants in the decision-making process, the backbench Members of the Government representing electorates in Brisbane.

The backbench Members' position on town planning was similar to that being presented by the non-govern­ mental organizations. In some matters, organizations regularly approached particular Members, who, in turn, ^ 504 would present the organization's case to the Government,

504 Interview with Mr, N, Lee, 198

the organizations thus found the backbench Members'

committee receptive to their submissions. Further,

this relationship was reciprocal, for, as the backbench

Members served as spokesment for the interests of the

organizations, so, too, did the organizations represent commtmity support for the provisions which the back­ benchers wanted. The backbenchers could influence the

Govemment:

(l) by the merit of the proposal they presented; I'M) by the direct threat of withdrawing or by withdrawing support for the Government's proposals; or (3) if the Government considered that the political costs of bringing the backbench raerabers to coraply were too high.

The amendraents to the Act accepted by the Govern­ ment were minor procedural alterations extending time limits and definitions and clarification of provisions in three sections. It did not accept the proposed amendments central to the objections of the non-govern­ mental organizations and backbench comraittee to extend the provisions of corapensation, making court decisions final, or creating a state planning authority.

Dissatisfaction with the provisions in the legis­ lation was not a significant enough issue to cause the backbench committee Members to use the alternative of 199 withdrawal of support to try to amend the Act or cause its defeat. Members of the comraittee stated in

Parliament that, though they still thought the Act inadequate, they would support it as araended. ^ That the Govemment did not accept the amendments central to the objections of the backbench coraraittee indicates that it did not consider the political costs of bringing thera to coraply with the Government's proposals were high enough to make any major alterations of the Act.

Whether the changes which were accepted were raade on the merit of the proposals or as palliatives to the dissatisfaction of the backbenchers and non-governmental organizations would be difficult to ascertain. It is certain, however, that neither the non-governmental organizations nor the metropolitan backbenchers were able to influence the Government to alter its town planning policies expressed in the enacting legislation nor decrease the costs to municipal land owners at the expense of itself and the City Cotmcil.

Finally, the town plan required ordinances outlining

^°^Qld. Pari. Deb., 1964, Vol, CCXXXIX, p. 1786, 24 Nov. and p. 2111, 3 Dec 200 the conditions to be imposed by the City Council in administering the town plan. The ordinances required the co-operation of the City Cotmcil and State Govern­ ment. The Council was responsible for drafting and approving the proposed ordinances. They were then to be forwarded to the Government who would consider them and also table them in the State Parliament. State

Parligtment could vote to disallow provisions in the ordinances. The Government could also veto proposals in the ordinances by refusing to give them Govemor-in-

Council approval. Anyone attempting to influence the preparation of the ordinances could do so by influencing the Council during their preparation, the State Parlia­ ment during their consideration, or the Government in granting Governor-in-Council approval.

As has been shown, the Lord Mayor was the major decision-maker in town planning matters for the City

Ootmcil, Persons able to influence the preparation of the town plan were able to do so by their capacity to influence the Lord Mayor, Since the ordinances were part of the town plan, the Lord Mayor remained the major decision-maker on the provisions to be included during their preparation. Additional potential contestants ' 201

though, were introduced in the decision-making process

when the proposed ordinances were required to receive

the approval of the City Cotmcil members.

The local press did not attempt to influence the

provisions of the ordinances. Its references to the

ordinances were as previous town planning references,

a function of the stateraents raade public by non­

governmental organizations andraerabers of the Govern­

ment and City Council. One of the two editorials

referring to the ordinances which appeared in the

Courier Mail exhorted the coraraunity to study the pro-

posed ordinances closely. The other admonished

the Governraent for sending suggested araendraents to

the City Council on the ev6 of the Council's preparing

to approve the ordinances agreed upon after the initial

Council and Government negotiations. In the same

editorial, however, it stated that the proposed amend­ ments might be sensible and added that the Premier, wisely, only wanted the Government to be fair, not dogmatic,"^50 '7

^ Courier Mail. I3 Oct., I965.

^°'^Ibid., 11 Nov., 1965, 202

Hie general electorate did not became concerned with the provisions being drafted for the town planning ordinances. The provisions of the ordinances were neither raised in the State Parliament elections of

1963, nor the City Cotmcil elections of 1964.^ The

League for Citizen's Rights debated the subdivision requirements in the proposed ordinances. Its members did not reach a concensus of opinion on the provisions and no attempts were made by the organization to 509 influence the provisions of the ordinances. Neither were party officials mentioned in interviews as attemp­ ting to influence the provisions of the Act.

Non-govemraental organizations were particularly concerned with the provisions of the proposed ordinances

The ordinances dealt with land-tise and subdivision requirements, a major motivation forthe organizations' initial interest in town planning, and their objective was to limit the Council's requirements in setting conditions for site-use, subdivision and building approvals,

508 Review of campaign stateraents and editorials in the Courier Mail. 509 McArthur, op., cit,. p, 5* 203

Research revealed few attempts by community

organizations to exert influence on the City Council

during the preparation of the ordinances. The Chamber

of Commerce and the Brisbane Development Association

submitted written objections and recoriimendations to 510 the Council. The churches in the municipal area

opposed a twenty feet building set-back proposed in the

ordinances and a delegation representing the churches

met with the Lord Mayor. They were, however, tinsuccess-

ful in havxng theprovxsion altered. 511 Organizations

had not been successful in influencing the City Cotmcil

during the preparation of the scheme and did not appear

to exert influence on the drafting of the ordinances.

Instead of attempting to influence the City Council to

alter its position and change provisions in the ordinances,

they turned their efforts towards the Govemment and members of the State Parliament.

The Government had the authority to act on the

ordinances once they had been forwarded by the City

Council for Governor-in-Council approval. In fact,

510 "Brisbane Town Plan", Voice of Business, No, 8, Nov, 1965, p. 1. 511 Courier Mail, 13 May, I965, and interview with Mr. A, Heath. 204 however, the Government could and did use this authority to exert influence on the City Council during the

Council's preparations of the town planning ordinances.

Negotiations had taken place during the preparation of 512 the ordinances. The Lord Mayor had wanted to include certain requirements such as a twenty feet set-back on all industrial and commercial buildings. The Government, however, did not believe that its metropolitan backbench

Members would accept such conditions and would not agree to accept theprovisions. A certain veto by the Govern­ ment precluded the Council's submitting the ordinances to the Govemment .51 3

At first the Lord Mayor remained resolute and would not be influenced by the Government's representations to delete the conditions he wanted. Preparation of the ordinances stopped. The Premier, however, x\ranted to get the town planning matter finished by 1965, Since the

City Council would not co-operate and prepare ordinances the Oovernment would accept, he decided the Government would prepare the ordinances for the City Cotmcil.

512 Interviews with Mr. J. C, Slaughter and Mr. M. MacNamara.

^•"•^Idem. 205

This forced the Lord Mayor and City ^otincil to co­

operate with the Government in the preparation of the

ordinances.

The Town Clerk now believed that the City Council

should work with the Government to ensure that it got

at least some of the provisions it desired. By this

argtiment he was able to convince Lord Mayor Jones to

give Cotmcil co-operation. The willingness of the City

Cotincil to co-operate now allowed the Government to

give the responsibility to submit the ordinances back

to the local authority. Thus, the Preraier agreed to establish the coraraittee which eventually produced the ordinances acceptable to both Government and City

Council. These proposed ordinances were forwarded by the City Council to the Government for consideration and opened for public review on 12 October 1965. 5l4

As previously shown, the non-governmental orgein- izations had approached the Government and backbench

Members of the Governraent representing metropolitan electorates. Representations to the Government were by written submissions. The Government had not

^"""Courier Mail, 13 Oct., I965. 206 previously been directly responsive to representations by the organizations on town planning matters, hence the organizations directed most of their efforts to influence the provisions in the ordinances through the backbench Members. The backbench Members' position, as in the 1964 town planning legislation, was similar to that of the comratmity organizations. The same backbench coraraittee which met on the legislation met to consider the provisions of the ordinances, proved responsive to the organizations' submissions and presented thera to the Government,

The backbenchers retained essentially the same means to influence the Government as with the town planning legislation. They might bring the Govemment to require the Cotmcil to include or alter a provision of the ordinances by the practical merit of the sub­ mission. Though they could threaten or vote to disallow certain proposed ordinances, to do so would involve its political costs. They could also influence the Govem­ ment by representing potential disaffection with its consequent political costs if the Government did not accept their proposed amendraents. 207

The City Cotmcil had closed the ordinances for public review by 27 October. 515 Two weeks later the ordinances were ready to be subraitted for Council approval. Before the Council raet to approve the ordinances, however, the Government forwarded the recommended amendments frora the backbenchers' committee for the Council's consideration. Lord Mayor Jones protested, stating that the ordinances which the

Council was prepared to adopt had been received by the City Council on a specific report by the Town

Clerk that the Govemment would subsequently accept 5l6 them as drafted. Mr. Nicklin replied that "it was wrong to suggest that because the Governraent offered a helping hand in framing the ordinances that it should accept blindly the great body of ordinances, many of which were not studied by a special government committee, hadn't been seen or studied by cabinet and had not been open to parliamentary or public examina- tion." 517 Whether or not the Governraent and City

Cotincil had agreed on the provisions of the proposed

^ Ibid., 11 Nov., 1965.

517ibld. 208 ordinances, the Government was now responding to the influence of the backbench comraittee and non-govern­ mental organizations by having the Council consider additional amendments.

This influence was further in evidence when, after discussions between the Preraier and Lord Mayor, the Cotmcil accepted seven of twelve recommendations from the backbench committee and non-governmental organ­ izations. One major change deleted the £250 and £90 fee required per subdivision allotment for sewerage and water reticulation. A substitute provision allowed the Cotincil to require only the actual cost of providing 518 the services. Other changes further limited the conditions which could be required by the Council.

These included that:

(1) the area in trtincations which the City Cotmcil could deraand free of cost from service stations was decreased; (2) shop owners on unpaved roads could only be required to pave ten feet instead of sixteen; (3) drainage required for a shopping centre could only be in respect to the land imraediately involved;

^•'" Qld. Governraent Gazette, I965, Vol. CCXX, No. 73, p, 1827, 21 Dec, 209

(4) parking space required at shopping centres emd drive-in hotels was decreased to three square feet for one square foot of retail floor space; (5) parking spaces to be required for industries was to be at the discretion of the Registration Board; (6) the City Council could not disapprove of any proposed subdivision on the basis that a structure involved raight have an "undesirable aspect"; (7) the City Cotmcil could not now require that leuid be dedicated free by a subdivider for road widening, beautification, or an esplanade along any water course or bay.

The only overt challenge to the Lord Mayor's decision­ making role on City Council town planning raatters by the majority Municipal Labor Party aldermen arose on the recommendation by the backbench committee that Regis­ tration Board decisions be subject to review by the

Aldermen-in-council. A Labor caucus voted twelve to nine in favour of such an araendraent at a meeting from

Which the Lord Mayor was absent. The challenge failed when the Lord Mayor had the proposed amendment ruled out-of-order in a Cotmcil meeting. The aldermen then proceeded to approve the revised ordinances agreed upon during the discussions between the Lord Mayor and the

Gove rnme nt,51 9

^•^^Courier Mail. 2 Dec, I965. 210

As we have seen, the City Council was responsible for drafting proposed ordinances then requiring

Govemor-in-Council approval. Discussions took place to determine what conditions set by the ordinances the

Government would approve. The Government, influenced by the threat that its metropolitan backbench Members would notsupport certain requirements desired by the

Lord Mayor, sought to limit the conditions demanded in the proposed ordinances. The Lord Mayor, representing

Council town planning interests, refused to accept these restrictions. The Government broke the resulting impasse by using its powers as the superior authority to begin to draft the ordinances for the City Council. The Lord

Mayor, influenced by the Town Clerk's argument that to get some of the provisions he desired was better them getting none, was thus coerced into co-operating with the Government. The non-governmental organizations and backbench committee were still not satisfied with the resulting proposed ordinances. The Government responded to their influence smd had the City Council further alter and limit the provisions in the ordinances dealing with land-use, subdivisions and building approvals. 211

CHAPTER VIII

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the interaction of the forces involved in the community decision-making process. In Chapter Three we identified these forces as being:

(l) city public officials, 2) city bureaucracies, 3) party'functionaries, 4) the electors, 5) the press, 6) non-governmental groups, and (7) public officials and bureaucrats of other governmental tinits (state, federal or bordering units). We then grouped these participants into three categories: (1) the comratmity composed of: (a) party ftinctionaries, (b) the electors, (c) the press, and (d) non-governmental organizations; (2) the City Council composed of: (a) city public officials, and (b) city bureaucracies; and (3) the State Government.

Our method was to then review the role of these contestants in the decision-making processes producing the Brisbane Town Plan. 212

If our study was to reveal anything concerning

the community decision-making processes, the issues

involved first needed to be significant enough to

create interest and cause the contestants to attempt

to influence the eventual provisions. Secondly, the

greater the ntimber of potential participants actively

involved by the issues, the closer the resulting

interaction would come in approxim.ating the whole

commtmity decision-making processes and in identifying

its power structure. The Brisbane Town Plan was

chosen as an act meeting these criteria because its

provisions affected all citizens and embraced a

ntimber of specific issues such as land use controls,

traffic planning and finance.

Did the issues of the Town Plan evoke sufficient

interest from participants in the conmiunity decision­ making process to motivate them to 3.ttempt to influence its provisions? If so, whom?

As was shotAOx in Chapter Three, the concept of town planning has commonly come to include five different activities. They are:

ft) the preparation and administra-tion of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations; (2) fact-gathering with regard to land use, population movements, housing conditions, transportation and other matters; 213

(3) the design of particular facilities or the making of plans for dealing with special land use problems; (4) the preparation of a capital expenditures budget; (5) the preparation of a master plan (also called "comprehensive", "general", or "developmental" plan).

These activities involved two types of issues, general and immediate.

The preparation of a master plan required the adoption of general planning principles. The principles included the overall design for the city's social and aesthetic development and affected the whole commtmity.

Their impact, however, was vague and remote, for, by reason of their generality at this time, they were issues of theory and many of the consequences would be experienced only in the future. Concern for these general issues motivated only a handful of persons, three architects and two town planners. These men were the only persons in the polity to make proposals on, or object to, the general principles in the proposed plan. Moreover, the persons concerned with these general issues of town planning had no success in effecting changes to the principles adopted in the plan. Contestants in the decision-making process 214 who concerned themselves with the general issues of town planning were both few in number and wielded

Ixttle xnfluence.

The immediate issues involved in the application of the town plan had more specific effects. They were:

(1) what authority would be responsible for the interpretation and impleraentation of the town planning principles? what would be the poxvers of that authority? [3! who would be required to alter existing practices and plans?

These becarae the issues which involved the efforts of contestants in the decision-making process on town planning raatters.

The City Council was raotivated by a desire to extend its powers and reduce its costs. The State

Governraent became involved in attempting to limit its responsibilities and costs and, secondly, as the focus of the efforts of theother contestants, A ntunber of landowners acted when threatened with a change in existing land uses and plans. Non-governmental organ­ izations were used to represent conmitmity interests wishing to reduce the City Council's town planning

520 For further discussion on the effect of contest­ ants on general issues see Banfield, Edward C., ec. Urban Government. Free Press of Glencoe:New York, 196I, p. 405. 215

powers and lower costs for land owners and developers.

Participants in the decision-making process who

concerned themselves with the particular issues of

town planning were more ntiraerous than those concerned

with general raatters.

Furthermore, the number of participants tended to

increase the more iraraediate and specific the issues

became. The most immediate and specific issue of the

town plan resulted from the effect of the proposed

zoning and road scheme on property owners. Householders,

manufacturers and owners of sraall businesses adversely

affected by these proposals produced the greatest

ntimber of objections to the plan when they submitted

their objections individually. Of 3,053 objections to

the proposed plan in I962:

(a) 59 per cent were individual objections to the proposed zoning scheme; (b) 3k per cent were individual objections to the proposed road scheme; (c) 1,5 per cent were objections to the legal basis of the plan; and trpi (d) 5,5 per cent were miscellaneous objections.

Even a group of persons in one suburb who would be

adversely affected by proposed zoning continued to

521 Interviews with Mr, L, Guthrie, Mr. L, Suggars, and Mr. J. Sewell. Interviews with heads of non-govern­ mental organizations. Courier Mail l6th Jan, l8th Jan,, and 3rd Feb., I962, 216

522 present their objections individually. The effects of issues such as compensation, appeal provisions and subdivision requirements were less immediate and not specific to any individual. Contestants from the commuility on town planning matters who were concerned with these issues were confined to non-governmental organizations.

Who were the contestants in the decision-making process? The general electorate did not become involved in the formation of the town plan when its provisions did not become issues in the election campaigns for

City Council or State Parliament offices. The entire

Brisbeine electorate was affected by the general principles of the town plan, but very few people were concerned with these issues. Specific issties, such as who was to bear the costs of the plan and who would be required to alter existing procedures and plans, had an immediate effect on only a minority of the el ectors.

Political larties appeared to select neither general principles or town planning nor issues affecting a minority of the electors as election issues.

Research revealed no persons approaching party functionaries in an attempt to influence the formation of the town plan. Neither were there any efforts

522 Interview with Mr. L. Guthrie. 217 through any party structure to attempt to exert influence on the plan. Town planning issues did not involve party functionaries.

The local press did not take a positive position in editorials on town planning matters, nor v/as the subject pursued with any diligence. Editorials men­ tioned the need for a town plan only three times in eight years; there were no proposals for the to-vina plan originated by the press. Instead, the only editorials were cautious infrequent (four) reflections on the activities of the contestants involved in the formation of the plan.

As has been shown, participants became involved in the decision-making process when immediately affected by the issues repiresented in the town plan. Certain non­ governmental organizations were employed as contestants when an effect of the town plan related to a purpose of the organization. Professional organizations, such as the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Engineers, and the Institute of Surveyors, attempted to exert influence on the town plan when the provisions of the plan appeared to affect the practices and clients of their merabers. The Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of

Manufactures became involved when the provisions affected 218 the trades and industries of their members. Other professional organizations, such as the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association, or social orgamizations, such as Tattersalls Club, did not become involved, for the issues of town planning did not affect any of the purposes of these organizations.

In general, the more immediate and specific the effect of an issue, the more participants tended to act individually. Correspondingly, the more iraraediate and specific the effect of an issue on the purposes and interests of an organization, the more the organization tended to function individually. Progress associations, representing the objections of separate communities, restricted their efforts to presenting only those objections. Members of the Charaber of Manufactures were the raost affected by the provisions for non-conform­ ing uses, and the Chamber became the organization raost concerned with those provisions.

Other issues, such as compensation provisions and appeal rights, were more general. They had a common effect on members of a number of organizations concerned with town planning matters. The study revealed that many organizations representing specific interests were 219 members of other organizations (such as the Chamber of

Commerce representing trade and the Chamber of Manufac­ tures representing industry) which in turn represented the interests of groups of organizations. Thirteen organizations concerned with town planning matters were members of another organization, the Brisbane

Development Association, among whose stated purposes was the fostering of a town plan. These "federal" organizations were used to represent the position of their member organizations on the more general issues.

A case in point was when the Brisbane Development

Association and the Chamber of Commerce were used to make representations for the completion of the ordin­ ances. Once the ordinances were placed on review, however, these two organizations and their raerabers disagreed on what some of the specific requirements of the plan were to have been. In essence, the more general the issues became, the more organizations tended to utilize "federal" organizations to present their common position.

The City Cotmcil becarae involved in town planning when delegated that function as a local authority. It only attempted to exert influence when it was delegated a role in the decision-making process. The Council raade 220 no apparent effort to participate in decisions on the town planning legislation, a raatter outside its own powers.

The Cotmcil was delegated the authority to deal with the general issues of planning. It was motivated to acquire a town plan, however, by specific issues.

Those issues were:

(1) to prepare and put into operation an urgently needed road plan; (2) to secure redevelopment powers for the Council; (3) to secure State Government co-operation in city development; and (4) to obtain statutory authority for conditions to be demanded for land-use permits.

These specific issues involved the Cotincil's greatest interest during the preparation of the town plan.

The State Govemment was the final authority re­ sponsible for town planning powers and ftinctions. It attempted to limit its involvement in local issues by delegating its town planning responsibilities to the

City Cotmcil, It became involved in those conflicts when the City Cotincil sought wider powers and State

Government co-operation while contestants in the commtmity sought to limit the Council's powers.

In previous chapters, this study identified a.nd discussed the various contestants and their roles in the decision-making process. Analysis of the roles of MX

the actors revealed the power structure applying to town

planning matters in Brisbane. /ithin this structure the

State Governraent exercised effective dominance over town

planning affairs. This dominance was evidenced by the

lack of effective action in initiating formation of a

plan until, in response to representations by, and the

obvious needs of a subordinate level of government, the

Minister decided to begin the task. Though it delegated

the task of preparing a zoning map, the Govemment again

exhibited its dominance when debate on the accompanying

legislation and ordinances by the other contestants was

limited to the Government's proposals, A further

indication of the extent of this power was indicated by

the limited, even negligible, effect other contestants

had in bringing the govemment to alter proposals, par­

ticularly those affecting its own position. Such

structure, where a contestant in the decision-making process exercises pre-eminence over others, has frequently been described as monolithic. 523

The term monolithic may be applied to describe the power structure concerning town planning in Brisbane to only a limited degree. Some minor revisions were made

523 Martin, Roscoe, et al.. Decision in Syracuse, Indiana University Press;Bloomington, 196I, p. 9« 222

as the resultof representations by other contestants.

The Government delegated its authority over some activ­

ities. It also delayed its decision on other matters

to avoid involvement in certain issues with the corres­

pondent political costs. Any acquiescence or' regard

toward the other contestants in the decision-making

process would tend to indicate that the State Government

was, or at least perceived itself as being, affected by

their reactions and activities. To the extent that its

actions were thus influenced, it surrendered its

monopoly of power.

Similarities were found in the roles of the various

contestants in the formation of the Brisbane Town Plan

to those identified in studies by Miller and Kaplan. In

Miller's study of an English city, the City Council t^ras 524 the main arena for decision-making. A major

characteristic of the Toronto policy-making process, as

described by Kaplan, was the dominant role played by the

city administration in initiating and defining certain 525 policies."^ -^ Similarly, key administrators appeared to

524 Miller, Delbert C, "Decision-Making Cliques in Community Power Structures:A comparative Study of an American and an English City", The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXIV, No. 3, Nov. 1958, p. 3. 525 Kaplan, Harold, "Politics and Policy-Making in Metropolitan Toronto", Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. XXXI, No. 4, Nov., I965, P. 54l. 223 be influential with the responsible elective heads of

each level of government involved in the creation of

the Brisbane Town Plan. Their influence in the decision­ making process was increased as the State Government

tended to be the initiator of action and to define the areas for public debate. Non-governmental organizations

involved in tirying to influence the preparation of a town plan played a similar role to private groups in the

English and Canadian studies. In Toronto, Kaplan found

the groups playing only a minor role in the decision- 526 making process. Miller xdentified the non-governmental organizations' most important function as debating the issues of proposals, while decision-making remained 527 restricted to the City Council. In this study too, non-governmental organizations tended to speak for various commtmity interests but exercised little influence in affecting the town plan.

However, some other studies have fotind the contestants in the decision-making process assuming different roles.

In Chicago, Banfield fotind that legislation tended to be initiated by large formal non-governmental organizations.

Debate was created when action initiated threatened the

526^, ., Ibxd. 527 Miller, ££. cit. 224 interests of other organizations. Political heads tended to seek to avoid these conflicts and either delayed decision-making until the organizations found a solution or else imposed a compromise upon the 528 contestants. In this study, the State Governraent, rather than private organizations, tended to initiate and dominate the decision making process in town planning raatters.

This study has been a beginning attempt to identify both the community decision-making process eind its corresponding power structure. It is based, however, on a review of the formation of only one act. The decision-making process involves the resolution of a number of conflicts which may, potentially or actually, affect the interests of a number of contestants. It is unlikely that the issues of a single act would motivate all such actors to action. Only by identifying these contestants and analyzing their interaction in all areas of community conflict could a complete model of the power structure be made.

The conclusions drawn from this study also raise further questions. In Chapter Three we grouped four participauits into a category termed the community.

^^Sanfield, Edward C, Political Influence, The Free Press of Glencoe:New York, I96I, p, 271. 225

Those participants were party functionaries, the electors, the press, and non-governmental organizations. They played a very limited role in decision-making in town planning matters. Would any of these participants assume a more significant role in initiating action or in forming or blocking legislation on other issues? If so, what are those issues and how do those participants exercise their influence?

If the commtmity participants fail to exert greater influence on other issues, what are the reasons for their limitations? Perhaps the formal governmental structure precludes such a more positive role by the community. If this is the case, what is intrinsic in the structure or its parts which provide governmental dominance in the decision-making process? The study of a single act cannot supply the answer to so basic a question about the nature of Australian politics. 226

APPENDIX I

Population of Brisbane and total ntimber of houses

Year Population Population Population Total in 5 mile in named in 10 mile ntimber of radius suburbs® radius houses

1860 6,000 ; ; 1861 6,051 1,144 1864 12,785 2,580 1868 14,265 4,674 1871 25,916 4,358 1876 26,953 5,299 1881 47,172 31,109 6,531 1886 51,689 9,770 I891 101,554 56,075 10,804 1901 119,428 62,923 120,428 11,288 1906 132,470 1911 143.510 1916 168,390 1921 217,710 1926 258,620 1931 283,440 1936 313,430 1941 344,230 1946 399,530 ; . 1951 453,660 1956 531,000 1961 621,550

North Brisbane, South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley, Kangaroo Point. 227

H H 00 00

00 00

O rh M P C H (0 4.0) H . 4 CO P t, P P CO Hj jd c+ O H5 H- H) CD 4 HJ O H- " o (5 H- lis o ? P t O CO H p. H- a P P CO 0- p c+ . rt- i P^ (D i^ a O 4 1 Hj CD o 0^ J

(D rt- Ux •P-^ O TJ O U5 p CO O N3 3 f! H CO ISl P 0 • g • &* O . HJ . p o . a a O O 3 CD ct ct & § D^ O W H CD B o c; o (D H- S3 § (D P O (D CD !:! H- O p; (D 4 O CO H) c+ O (D (D •d O H- H 0 P i= 4 P (D (D 4 3 CO 4 O H- CD P- H H CD H H- O P P CD CB H •d p. P CO H P Eg t:S H :o-oi O !^ 0 H- d- O CD O ^ -^ 4 0 CD CO 3 H H CD O M ti H d- C t:* CO o 4 H- S "^ > "A 0 o ct- H CD CO s! Hj o 3 CD V o ct CO H- P 4 O O O H p 0 P) P 4 H) ji CO o ct o a hdtf ° £ a P 0 O O ct (Si 4

H- CO o CD H H 228

H H H 00 00 00 VO c» Kji 00 ct O CO •-B H 3 M 3 H 4 O H' 4 • H- P P O P P H, ct P P S H- H) 4 CD C» CD 3 ct H' O 4 H- ct I C 4 O H CO ct 4 3 CD 3 CD . O CO CD O P Q*d o O ct l-b CO O H) ct H) CO CO H o ON Ct 3 ct Ch O (D CO P CD H> H, cr CD P CD CD (D (D ct ct

o VoJ CO M H- H H • o . H- O N CO O CD H CD "TJ ro o H) 0\ p. P 4 H) P H- 4 a (D H-o P O ct P H-" CD ct p- p- CD CD a O 4

ctH'CD ct?<^CKcTP'UT ct P t> 4^0 OPiH'OUT.'^P* H 013 HJ . O CD a 4 o a O 41-^ P PCOCDCO OctCDOP CD CD !> ct 013 CD CO 0 s; 4 0 . CD 0 C a 4 H- . CO CD 3 o 3 ct ct . CD H) (p rt-*tj ?*>^d 0 CO P" d H- 0''d rt- p. p ct cn P 0 < 1 p P 0 H- CD H. H- ct 1 4 H V 229

H

O O O

s: rt- 4 H- O CD pi >^ rt C p !> p* CD H' P 4 ct ON CD p- CJs O 4 a H- HJ CD ct CD ^ CD rt- 4 O PO o H- pi p H pi • D' P O VO O 4 00 p ct -v3 P 0\U' HJ VJT O 4^p HjO {3- h3 O H CD HJ P HJ Q • CT* O . CO • p H- H . HJ o • H- HJ . rt- HJ ct P H CD HJ O' s: to (D co CD P ct Pi O H rt- O P t-* CD H- r CD o * rt- P CO . 0 p CO p O P H P p P P Pi CO 013 pi P P H- pi P H- P tJ O p p ct rt- ct O ct CD P CO H- $ ct ct H- rt- H 013 O p P H rt- ct 4 4 if CO o H p U P l-i P* P- pi 4 P CD p • O CD O P O rt- ct P O p (DON O p' H- CD Pi CO p o 013 H) 4 4 Pi 4 4 o 4 ct CD 4 CD P 4 4 O P H- CD CD ct H- 4 013 P P H- O ct H- H- P H- O H ct CO rt- H- CO H 4 rt- ctvj O pi 4 s: CO ct CD CO ct P P O CD *

ct H- • CO pi CD O o P o p s: rt- p P, 4 rt- 4 O CD CD H 4 p. . 013 P CD Pi O CD 4 4 230

H

O ro^ CO ^ ON rt- O P O 4 4 CJ. D* H 013 rt-VjJ p < C K> Ct 0 0 00 ct O 4 ct o . p O 4 H- p. jD O H- CD H, B HJ O o O CD *<( . P P O • P P P CO P O I ct ct 4 4 H- P H' 0 &• p. P o P P P.013 P H- Pi > CD OiOl} pi § Pi ct M Op- Pi '^ ct O S O ct Pi O ct 4 01 rt- CD O 4 CO o o a O O CD H- CD CD CD P P P CD 013 P p. 0 CD 4 p. H p t rt- ^^ O 013 O O <1 O 4 4 tC pi CD P P 0 < H t P P P •d 3 CD 4 CD 013 H CO p P ct CD H- cr CD • cn CD p. P H- P CD H CO o P 4 pi CO y O 3 H o iO o 4 p CO CD tJ P H- P Ct H- et P CD P H' P P p. P pi 4 P- 0 4 CO CO CD CO O pi pi P P- CD CD ct H P O p H- " «• 013 *^ P* 4 P 0

rt- 4 P O *rt3 HJUJ O i\J O O 0 P O • P O • O • O CD ri­ P P O 0 ff a* o ct P- 4 O rt- P 4 O p- p CO 0 P pi 4 o p O P • P- H et rt § P HJ o P, p. P- p- & 0 3 H O 0 H pi < 0 013 P' P rt- CD H P CD ct 0 4 0 0

H H H NOVO VO O V-0 JO ON

o p. fo 4 H o 0.0. p ct pi 4 0 O P SI rt- 4 0 0 0 co 3 3 fD CO . p-»d a P P 0 3 0 P rt-Ti Pi CO O rt- p p- CT' rt-O O *<^ P- o p 0 f P pi rt- P p P- P vi 3 Pi CD 0

0 P- Pi rt- O !\3 P- td H CD HJ p. p- O • HJ 0 . CO ct 0 P P- ct 0 o p- 3 p Q o P- to P 0 O O 0 ct p ct P P ct p.

vo H H 0\

P- ^o o tJ HjtJ o 3 4 H rt- H H P P 0 • P P CD Pi^ rt- O H P- H P o 0 P' 0 CJ* Pi HJ 4 o Pi 4 0 CD 0 0 0 p . 0 CO CO P P p H CO o Ct 4 HJ 0 p- rt- O o P- P 4 H) P* P p- 0 HJ p p X P < CO H H ct 0 S ct 3 P' P 4 • Pi O P- P H p 0 0 P 4 P ONO P- HO P- ct P I HJ 0 4 O p. CD 0 4 Pi •d 0 P- 4 rt- J\J •ti 0 ?«5 H 0 rt- ct rt- s; •p-o I 4 •33 O p 0 O . P 4 H • 4 P- P- • 4 p" • O o 0 0 P o <^ CD 0 rt- O 0 P- ^? • p O g- o < CO Pi 0 P P H pi O O O

H> 0 3 H P P P • 4 ct P- f P H O H 0 ?5 r ct 4 rt- I ^ H H H VO VO VJ ^3 OS 4^ Ux

P' p. >t) •d o p- P 00 D' © ct 0 CTvfe! 3 UX HJ 0 3 CO CD H -p-cr a p o 0 P H p HJ H H P- p Pi • P 3 O p • O P . O p. P P- 0 • 0 O d- 4 P O P P Pg r*'^ i 4 P- P • O 0 V P •d ct P O P o rt- P CD o p. v

APPENDIX III

Ntimber of vehicles registered in .ueenslamd:

1948 171,109 1949 187,968 1950 212,919 1951 240,784 1952 255,025 1953 266,221 1954 284,207 1955 307,721 1956 326,555 1957 345,084 1958 365,189 1959 383,799 i960 406,743 1961 421,736 1962 435,257

529 Year Book of Queensland, Brisbane:Govemment Printer, No. 19, 1958, p. 242, and No. 24, I963, p. 264. 235

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Adelaide Town Planning Conference and Exhibition, Official Volume of Proceedings, Adelaide:Varden and Sons Ltd., I918.

Banfield, Edward C. , ed. , Urban Governraent, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, I96I.

Banfield, Edward C, Political Influence, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Banfield, Edward C,, and James Q. Wilson, City Politics, Carabridge:Harvard University Press, 1963.

Brewer, F.J., and R. Dunn, Sixty-Six Years of Municipal Government, Brisbane:Standard Press, Bowen House, 1925.

Brewer, F.J. and R. Dunn, The Urisbane Municipal Year Book, Brisbane:H. Pole dz Co. Ltd., 1928.

Fowles, E. ¥. H. and E. A. Douglas, Local Government Law, Brisbane :The Law Book Co, of >.iueensland Ltd. , 1917*

Greenwood, Gordon and Joiin Laverty, Brisbane: 1859-1959, Brisbane:Oswald L. Ziegler, 1959*

Martin, Roscoe, and Frank J. Munger, ^t^. aT. , Decisions In Syracuse, Bloomington:Indiana University Press 196I.

Robinson, R.H., For My Countiy, Brisbane:W.R. Smith and Paterson Pty. Ltd., 1957.

Woolcock, J.L., The Local Authorities Act of 1902, Brisbane:Government Printer, 1902.

Woolcock, J. L. , and iiarcus ilertzberg, Local Government, Brisbane:Government Printer, 1913.

Year Book of Queensland, Brisbane:Governraent Printer, No. 19, 1958, and No. 24, I963. 236

Journals, Newspapers, and Reports:

Australian Planning Institute Journal.

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Presidential Address delivered By Mr. N. Ellemor, President, I9 September, I963.

Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report, Monthly Report, 1958-1964.

Brisbane Cotirier, I885, 1902, 1912, 1917, 1924.

Brisbane Development Association, First Annual Report, 1958.

Brisbane Town Plan, Monthly Review, Circular I63, Brisbane: The Brisbane Charaber of Commerce, I6 December, 1964.

"Brisbane Town Plan", Voice of Business, No. 8, November, 1965. Costello, F.G. "City of Brisbane Town Plan Report", January, 1950.

Courier Mail. 1944, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965.

Daily Mail. 1924.

Daily Standard. 1915, 1923. Hewison, A. , "Third Party Appeals in Brisbane", Australian Planning Institute Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, January,

Kaplan, Harold, "Politics and Policy-Making in Iletropolitan Toronto", Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. Vol. XXXI, No. 4, November, I965.

McArthur, R. , "Case-Study of the League for Citizens Rights", Queensland Honours IV, seminar paper, University of Queensland, I966.

Ilellor, E.D., "The Changing Face of Brisbane," Journal of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. VI, No. 2, 1959^0. Miller, Delbert C., "Decision-Making Cliques in Commtmity Potver Structttres:A Comparative Study of an American and an English City" , The American Journal of Sociolog3'- Vol. LXIV, No. 3, November, 1958. 237

Real Estate Institute of Queensland, Real Estate Jotimal

Sooveere, K. J., "The Brisbane Development Association", Government Honours IV paper (mimeo), University of Queensland, 3 April, 1967»

Telegraph. I885, 1902, 1924, 1944.

The ¥eek. I885, 1902.

Government Acts, Ordinances and Reports:

42° Victoria, No. 8, sec. 8-II3.

49° Victoria, No.15, sec. 2-9.

59° Victoria, No. 34, sec. 3-7.

64° Victoria, No. 9, sec. 45, 64, 85-89,

2° Edward VII, No. 19, sec. 6-8, 31-38, 45-62, 69-71, 86-87, 165-167, 225-226, 324.

5° Edward VII, No. 18, sec. 3-6.

3 George V, No. I6, sec. 10.

7° George V, No. 24, sec. 35.

14° George V, No. 19, sec. 17, 18, 37.

14° George V, No. 25, sec. 15, 18, 33.

1° George VI, No. 1, sec. 33.

15° George VI, No. 26, sec. 4, l4, 70.

1° Elizabeth II, No. 52, sec. 3, 4.

8° Elizabeth II No. 18, sec. 6-I3.

11 Elizabeth II, No. 42, sec. 3.

13° Elizabeth II, No. 60, sec. 5, 15.

13° Elizabeth II, No. 70, sec. 5. 238

Queenslauid Parliamentary Debates 1885, Vol. XLVII 1895, Vol. LXXIV 1902, Vol. LXXXIX 1916, Vol. CXXV 1917, Vol. CXXVIII 1923, Vol. CXLI 1924, Vol. CXLIV 1934, Vol. CLXVI 1952, Vol. CCV 1959, Vol. CCXXIII 1961, Vol. CCXXVII 1962, Vol. CCXXXII 1962, Vol. CCXXXVI 1964, Vol. CCXXXV-CCXXXIX

Queensland Government Gazette 1926, Vol. CXXVI 1928, Vol. CXXX 1940, Vol. CLIV 1965, Vol. CCXX, No. 73 Brisbane City Council Minutes 1932, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1944, 1949, 1958, 1961 Brisbeine City Council Officers Planning Committee Minutes 19^9, 1950 City of Brisbane proposed town planning ordinances, October, I965, Minutes of Special Meeting on Town Plan, September, 1950 Report on General Town Planning Scheme by Director of Local Govemment, 195k• Part III Sec. XI. Part II Sec. I. Report on Brisbane Town Plan, submitted by Mr. J. A. Sewell Minister of the Department of Local Govemment, August, 195k, Para. 12, I3, l4, 17, 27, 35, 114-124, Report on the Greater Brisbane Town Plan, Report by Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee to the Brisbane City Council Chairman, Mr. Clem Jones, 14 November, I96I, 239

Report on General Scheme submitted by Brisbane City Council, August, 1964, by Director of Local Govemment.

"The Brisbane Town Plan Act", introduced 18 March, I962.

Vitosh V. B.C.C. (195^) St. R. Qld, 283.

Written submission to the Brisbeine City Council Town Clerk by Property Owners' Association, February, I962.

Interviews:

Mr. C. Bennett, former Alderman and Vice Mayor of Brisbane, June, 1967.

Mr. H. N. Blocksidge, President, Property Owners* Association, June, 1967.

Mr. T.H.A. Cross, former President, Brisbane Development Association, Atigust, 1967.

Mr. R. Cummings, Member of Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, July, 1967.

Mr. C. J. Greenfield, Member of Greater Brisbeine Town Planning Committee, Alderman, Chairman of the Brisbane City Cotincil Health Committee, August, I967.

Sir Reginald Groom, former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Member of Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, September, I967,

Mr. L. Guthrie, former Communications Officer for the Brisbane City Council Planning and Building Department, July, 1967. Mr. A. Heath, Former Chief Planning Officer for Brisbane City Cotincil, April, 1967.

Mr. N. Lee, M.L.A., Yeronga, September, 1967.

Mr. ¥. D. Lickiss, M.L.A., Mt. Coot-tha, August, I967.

Mr. M. MacNeiraara, Director of Department of Local Govemment, June, 1967, 240

Mr. L. O'Brien, Brisbane City Council Solicitor, May, 1967. Mr. F. Olsen, former Alderman, President of Real Estate Institute of Queensland, July, I967.

Mr. L. Ord, Alderman, former Member of Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, former Alderman, former Chairman of Brisbeuie City Council Health Committee,

Mr. J. E. Pickersgill, Head of Brisbane City Council Planning and Building Departraent, June, 1967.

Mr. S. R. Reimsden, M.L.A., Merthyr, August, I967.

Mr. C. Robertson, Secretary of Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, Secretary for Urban Land Institute, April, 1967. Mr. J. Sewell, former Director of the Department of Local Government, Member of Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, Under Secretary of the Treasury, July, 1967.

Mr. J.C. Slaughter, former Town Clerk for Brisbane City Council, Member of Greater Brisbane Town Planning Committee, July, 1967* Mr. L. Suggars, General Manager of Queensland Chamber of Manufactures, May, 1967. Sir Leon Trout, Chairmein of Chamber of Commerce Town Planning Committee, April, I967.

Mr. R. ¥. Voller, May, I967.

Mr. E. Walsh, Minister for Local Govemment in 1953, June, 1967,

Correspondence:

Memo to Brisbane City Council frora City Planner McKinnis on Town Planning Scherae, l4th February, 1944,

Letter to Mr. F, Costello from Mr. M. D, Davies, 27th September, 1950,

Letter to Mr. J. Heading from J. Shearer, 17th September, 1958. 24l

Letter to Brisbane City Council Town Clerk frora Mr. L. Suggars, General Manager, Queensland Charaber of Manufactures, 6th March, I962.

Letter to Mr. G. F. R. Nicklin from Mr. R. Forsyth, President of Chamber of Manufactures, 30th May, 1963. Letter to Mr. L. Gardiner, Manager, Brisbane Development Association, from Mr. L. Suggars, General Manager, Chamber of Manufactures, 27th August, I963, and 6th September, I963.

Letter to Mr. G.F.R. Nicklin from Mr. B. T. Tuley, President, Brisbeine Development Association, 6th September, I963.

Memorandum to members of the Brisbane Development Association from Mr. T. H. A, Cross, President, 17th September, I963. Memoremdum to merabers of the Brisbane Developraent Association, 7th August, 1964.

Letter to Mr. G. F. R. Nicklin frora Mr. T.H.A. Cross, President, Brisbane Developraent Association, l4th August, 1964,

Letter to Mr. H. Richter from Mr. T. H. A. Cross, 2nd September, 1964,

Letter to Mr. J.C. Slaughter, Brisbane City Council Town Clerk, from Mr. T. H.A. Cross, 8th Noveraber, 1965. Letter to members of the Brisbane Development Association from Mr. L. J. Gardiner, Manager, March, 1967.

Correspondence with Sir Jeiraes Heading, forraer Minister for Local Government, 9th October, 1967*

Tj:.ivERS!iry OF QUEt:^'f:^:-¥JT1 u^m-pi MAIN U-liL,.^.Y

QUEENSLAND UNiVERSITY LIBRARY