Department of Government and Political Science Submitted for the Degree of Master of Arts 12 December 1968
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.