Council of Capital City Lord Mayors 8 Geils Court Deakin ACT 2600 02 6285 1672 [email protected] CONTENTS
SUBMISSION TO:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND CITIES INQUIRY INTO THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITIES
Sustainability transitions in existing cities
August 2017
Council of Capital City Lord Mayors 8 Geils Court Deakin ACT 2600 02 6285 1672 [email protected] CONTENTS
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Background ...... 1 3. Directing the trajectories of existing cities towards a more sustainable urban form ...... 2 4. Effecting Change – Regulation, Barriers and Opportunities ...... 5 5. National Benefits of being a global ‘best practice’ leader in sustainable urban development ...... 7 5. Conclusion ...... 8
1. INTRODUCTION
The Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (CCCLM) welcomes the opportunity to provide comment to the inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the development of cities. This submission addresses sub-inquiry one, sustainability transitions in existing cities.
The CCCLM represents the interests of the Lord Mayors (and the ACT Chief Minister) of Australia’s eight capital cities. Australia’s capital cities drive national economic growth, innovation and creativity.
It is evident that the economic and population load faced by Australia’s cities is set to grow into the future, Australia’s population is estimated to grow by 30 million people by 2031, with the lion’s share of this growth expected to be in our capital cities.
Capital cities expect that this estimate is very conservative - levels of growth being experienced in cities since the 2012 data was released indicate that the reality will far outstrip these estimations.
The CCCLM offers the following comments, which coupled with contributions that we have provided to a number of recent Federal Government inquiries as well as the work being contributed by the Prime Minister’s Cities Unit, we are hopeful that this inquiry will evolve into national action involving all levels of government for the betterment of our cities and therefore, our nation.
2. BACKGROUND
Capital Cities are Australia’s economic engine room, and account for over $1.150 trillion dollars of economic activity during 2015-16. This represents 69.3% of Australia’s GDP, and over 82% of GDP growth in 2015-16.1 Our capital cities employ 8.1 million workers. However, according to the Australian Infrastructure Audit, the cost of urban transport congestion was $13.7 billion in 2011, and is estimated to grow to $53.3 billion in 2031.
Cities account for 70 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, despite covering only two percent of global land area. Additionally, Australian cities are vulnerable to a number of natural disasters – rising sea levels, flooding in low lying areas, extreme heat conditions and extreme weather events. At the same time, cities are where the climate crisis can be averted. Our capital cities can take crucial local action to manage the impacts of climate change, working with city residents and businesses to deliver and manage the infrastructure, industries and actions we need to manage and protect against harsh climate conditions and extreme events. Cities, therefore, are the battleground for climate change and improving sustainability. This is supported by Goal 11 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which states a global commitment to “Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” by 2030.
CCCLM believes that the four key priorities for Australia’s cities are:
Infrastructure; The economy; Climate action and Resilience.
To address these priorities, cities need long term strategic planning delivered in partnership with all levels of government. This planning needs to take into account the growth, infrastructure required to support it and the
1 SGS Economics & Planning, ‘GDP by Major Capital City 2015-2016’ (report), 5 December 2016 http://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/gdp-major-capital-city-2015-2016
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 1
measurement of outcomes delivered. It is vital that this planning is supported with funding, and that it meets the needs of our growing communities in a strategic manner.
Residents, visitors and businesses do not see the city as a series of separate levels of regulatory jurisdictions. It can be confusing and frustrating for residents and businesses when a relatively simple matter is made complicated by a number of government agencies and overlapping regulation. Genuine and consistent coordination and collaboration of the different levels of government would be a significant enhancer of the ability to get better value for money and more effectively achieve outcomes of a more sustainable urban form.
There is an urgent need for action. Australia’s economic future depends on the global competitiveness of its cities.
3. DIRECTING THE TRAJECTORIES OF EXISTING CITIES TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM
Responsibility for the planning of cities and services rests with the State, Territories and Local Governments of Australia. Unlike countries such as the United Kingdom that has national planning legislation and national planning policy to define, regulate and guide growth to achieve sustainable development outcomes, no comparable framework exists in Australia.
This is not to say that the Australian Government does not have a role to play to helping to achieve sustainable cities. The CCCLM continues to advocate for the importance of partnership between Federal, State and Local Governments in the development of the nation’s cities. The Australian Government continues to have an important role in funding for areas such as roads, housing, health and education as well as policy relating to infrastructure provision and the environment.
No one level of government has the tools and policies to deal with the issues and opportunities of cities alone.
Central to our Smart Cities Plan is a commitment to a cooperative approach to long term planning, targeted investment and reform. Cities succeed and perform best when all tiers of government, the private sector and the community, work together to deliver a shared vision for their city. SMART CITIES PLAN (2016)
The role of the Australian Government and what it could be was clearly stated in the Federal Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage report ‘Sustainable Cities’2 (August 2005). This inquiry considered the urban form of cities, governance and policy frameworks, transport, water, building design and management and energy. Noteworthy is the Committee’s statement:
“The Committee determined that there is a critical role for the Australian Government to provide a holistic national vision and to establish a framework approach to integrate the components of a sustainable city. This framework of city sustainability should govern Australian Government policies and actions. It should also provide a connect framework to plan and fund sustainable Australian cities - the details and implementation of these plan are devolved to and determined by State, Territory and local governments as appropriate.” (pg. 3)
2 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_representatives_Committees?url=environ/citi es/report.htm
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 2
More recently the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) considered the reform of strategic planning of cities on 7 December 2009, because it recognised the need to ensure that capital cities are well placed to meet the challenges of the future.
COAG adopted National Objectives and Criteria for Future Strategic Planning of Capital Cities criteria. The objective adopted by COAG was:
“To ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable and socially inclusive and are well placed to meet future challenges and growth.”
COAG adopted the following overarching criteria for strategic planning of cities and importantly acknowledged the link between delivering on the criteria and future funding of infrastructure:
1. Be integrated; 2. Provide for a consistent hierarchy of future orientated and publicly available plans; 3. Provide for nationally-significant economic infrastructure (both new and upgrade of existing); 4. Address nationally significant policy issues; 5. Consider and strengthen the networks between capital cities and major regional centres, and other important domestic and international connections; 6. Provide for planned, sequenced and evidence-based land release and an appropriate balance of infill and greenfield development; 7. Clearly identify priorities for investment and policy effort by governments, and provide an effective framework for private sector investment and innovation; 8. Encourage world-class urban design and architecture; and 9. Provide effective implementation arrangements and supporting mechanisms.
These positions were later echoed by the Productivity Commission’s report ‘Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments’ (April 2011 - pg. 361) wherein it identified the importance of bipartisan political support, cooperation and participation between state and local government as important factors for successful implementation of capital city strategic and spatial planning.
The Smart Cities Plan, and its City Deals is a much welcomed initiative3. We refer to CCCLM’s Submission to the Smart Cities Plan4, which provides consideration of the Australian Government’s important role in providing leadership and the development of strategic partnerships.
The obligations agreed at COAG continues to be implemented by the capital cities, with most cities having established a range of outcomes that are aimed at achieving a more sustainable overall pattern of development and activity in the city.
In a planning context, this has been through strategic land use planning connected with infrastructure planning as well as policies and actions that manage the city. The higher level of these directions are articulated through the following documents:
CITY PLAN Adelaide The 30 year Plan for Greater Adelaide City of Adelaide 2016-2020 Strategic Plan Brisbane The Brisbane Vison 2031 Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031 Brisbane Long Term Infrastructure Plan 2012-2031 Brisbane. Clean, Green, Sustainable 2017-2031 Brisbane City Council Environmental Policy
3 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Smart Cities Plan https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/ 4 CCCLM Submission to Smart Cities Plan: http://lordmayors.org/site/?p=796
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 3
Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026 (new Transport Plan for Brisbane currently in preparation). City Plan 2014 Canberra ACT Planning Strategy 2012 Canberra: A Statement of Ambition Darwin Darwin Regional Land Use Plan Hobart Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Planning strategy Melbourne PlanMelbourne 2050 Perth [email protected] million 2050 Sydney Greater Sydney Region Plan 2056
In Brisbane, these higher level strategic settings are made operational through the policy and regulatory framework of procurement, Local Laws and importantly through Brisbane City Plan 2014. These elements have set Brisbane City Council and the city on a path to a more sustainable urban form that enhances urban liveability and quality of life and reduces energy, water and resource consumption. Brisbane City Council and the ACT Government, manages the whole city area, the impact of adopting and implementing these strategies is greatly increased. These have an immediate citywide effect and in turn, a regional, State and national effect well beyond that of other local governments.
Brisbane City Council has sought to establish Brisbane as a New World City. This has been identified as a significant inspiration for making the city a better place to live, work and invest in. The city’s key economic strengths are better understood, supported and more effectively promoted. Success in other locations has been investigated and where appropriate, applied in Brisbane. It is now the case that city-makers elsewhere are visiting Brisbane to understand what we are doing and how to bring that to their cities. While clearly a benefit to Brisbane, achieving
Case study: Brisbane City Council
Brisbane City Council has, at times, had over-regulated characteristics of State legislation impact the ability of the city to operate more effectively for its residents, visitors and businesses. In particularly, cross-jurisdictional challenges have occurred where local government and Queensland Government regulation overlap or are separated. For example, the delivery of State infrastructure is done outside of local government control and in a piecemeal approach. This severely limits the ability to effectively coordinate outcomes, get the best value for money and be in line with community expectations. In a similar way, Federal jurisdictions can make it challenging for Brisbane City Council to effectively plan and manage the city. Institutions and infrastructure such as airports are not within Brisbane City Council jurisdiction. The challenges of how Brisbane City Council seeks to maximise effective planning and management of the city can be lessened when key non-local agencies, departments or government-owned entities do not seek to be genuinely collaborative in how their facilities and operations are planned and operated. Brisbane City Council seeks to achieve regulation that is appropriate and in line with community expectations. Reducing over- regulation has made doing business and living in the city easier. This has included operational aspects such as the community’s ability to use a wide network of facilities, how waste for the whole city is regulated and to elements such as city-wide consistent levels of assessment for development. A simple example is the purchasing power that Brisbane City Council has in terms of its bus fleet. The large number of new buses and improvement to existing buses has made the fleet one of the single largest and youngest bus fleets in Australia. Brisbane City Council has also been able to self-fund many city-scale elements of the transport network that continue to improve the operation and sustainability of the transport demands of the city for now and in the future.
this is also a State and national benefit.
In Canberra, the benefits of the National Capital’s city-state governance provides for a closer integration of local and state planning and transport activities than in cities with multiple levels of government. Strategic land use and transport planning and urban renewal are key ACT Government priorities, underpinned by an integrated approach to land use, economic, infrastructure and transport planning. Key projects towards sustainable development in Canberra include the introduction of light rail, the City to the Lake development and Northbourne corridor upgrade, supported by the newly established governance structures of the Suburban Land Agency and City Renewal Authority.
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 4
Another growing planning consideration in the ACT is the increasing role of Canberra as the regional centre of South East NSW; a fact significantly recognised in the recent NSW South East and Tablelands Regional Plan. Over 50% of the workforce in the contiguous NSW council areas commutes to the ACT for work. In addition to this transport impact, NSW residents are significant users of Canberra’s education and health services. The growing cross-border influences on effective and sustainable planning in Canberra have seen the establishment of effective multi-jurisdictional cooperation governance arrangements in the Canberra Region. The ACT-NSW MoU for Regional Collaboration and the ACT’s participation in the Canberra Region Joint Organisation provide strong examples of the ability for jurisdictions and multiple levels of Government to cooperate on city and regional planning.
In other cities, these plans seek to achieve a balanced approach to growth, with a clear emphasis on achieving sustainable development. Further, these metropolitan wide plans cascade down to local government planning and regulation, thus ensuring a clear line of sight between the policy settings and implementation.
The matter is not therefore of having plans in place, or the implementation per se. The CCCLM considers within the context of this inquiry and the role of the Australian Government in working with State and local government is to find ways to accelerate the implementation of urban consolidation as identified in State, Territory and local government strategic plans.
4. EFFECTING CHANGE – REGULATION, BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A key part of delivering effective change is ensuring regulation and systems are optimised to respond to the future, rather than reinforcing patterns of the past.
The states across Australia are at various stages in implementing reform, whether it is the planning system, strata title regulation or the integration of State Government agencies and their planning and decision making.
Case study – Western Australian planning reform
In 2009 the Western Australia Planning Commission began a comprehensive reform process to improve the land use planning and development approvals system, identifying 11 key strategic priorities. Changes have included: . The introduction of Development Assessment Panels for development applications over of certain value; . Improved monitoring of the Urban Development Program by a strengthened Infrastructure Coordinating Committee; . Delivering a strategic vision for the growth of metropolitan Perth; . Improved processes for changing local government scheme amendments; structure plans, . Improved standardisation of planning provisions and decision making in local government; . Consistent processing of Development Applications across local governments; and . A focus on quality design in urban infill and high density developments.
There are challenges to effecting change for the sustainable development of cities, and many of these are within the powers of State, Territories and Local Governments; such as ensuring planning schemes are up-to-date and align to the broader vision and effectively engaging communities.
The Australian Government affects outcomes in cities through policies for housing, immigration and taxation; infrastructure and transport and through its international agreements such the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Capital city councils are the level of government closest to their communities, and have deep knowledge, understanding and experience in managing their cities. It is imperative that capital city councils are involved in decision making approaches associated with city planning and development. Federal government support in ensuring that State governments include city councils in planning decisions would be welcomed.
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 5
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE, UK) identified in its publication ‘Better Neighbourhoods: Making higher densities work (2005) the term ‘higher density’ is in itself a barrier in terms of public perception.
CABE: the top 10 biggest barriers to building higher density development in the South East, UK.
The largest barrier was transport related; the CCCLM considers this would be similar in cities across Australia. It also points to where the Australian Government can best partner with States, Territories and Local Governments in the delivery of transport improvements and specifically the early provision of public transport improvement into cities in advance of urban consolidation.
Related to this is the current system of the Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation. The Grattan Institute’s submission 5 to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation (30 June 2017) identifies that the transport infrastructure grant from the Commonwealth to the states is impacting the national economy. This submission identifies that the Commonwealth has “under-emphasised transport infrastructure in the large cities, despite the fact that they are the engines of national economic growth”.
Just as economic performance of regions varies with specific cycles in the global economy, so the application of Australian Government policy has a differential spatial impact. The Australian Government therefore has a role beyond funding of infrastructure, but also an obligation of recognising spatial locational diversity and issues, and working collaboratively with other governments and the private and community sectors to deal with the positive and negative impacts of its actions. The Australian Government needs to demonstrate a strategic leadership role which balances national economic, social, environmental and cultural aspects. This role, most importantly, provides leadership in developing appropriate coordinating mechanisms.
Therefore, the role of the Australian Government can be:
1. To prioritise funding that best helps to accelerate urban consolidation, thus linking funding to the provision of positive urban outcomes.
5 https://grattan.edu.au/news/how-australia-can-get-a-better-bang-for-its-transporting-infrastructure-buck- submission-to-the-productivity-commission/
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 6
2. Review, in concert with COAG, taxation policy settings and the Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation system, to ensure that the delivery of urban consolidation is actively supported and prioritised over other forms of urban development that are not aligned to achieving sustainable development. 3. Prioritise Federal funding to the provision of public transport within the inner areas of capital cities, as these areas often have existing community infrastructure that can be utilised and thus ensure growth optimally uses limited resources. This could also include a consideration of future trends of public transport and transport technology more broadly. 4. Encourage and promote connectivity – road, rail, sea and air transport including high speed passenger rail; high speed internet connectivity; electric vehicle charging networks; large scale renewable energy and water infrastructure. 5. Prioritise funding and coordination of climate change adaptation, disaster mitigation, preparedness and recovery; as well as ongoing research.
5. NATIONAL BENEFITS OF BEING A GLOBAL ‘BEST PRACTICE’ LEADER IN SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The CCCLM supports Australian cities being best practice leaders in sustainable development.
Countries and cities compete, not only for investment but for the attraction of talent to support and grow economies. Cities are measured by organisations such as the Mercers Quality of Living Survey and The Economist Global Liveability Ranking and seeking to achieve best practice in sustainable urban development will ensure Australian cities continue to be well placed in these ranking.
Sustainable Urban Development should be mindful of the rapid paradigm shifts driven by new technology. These shifts are fundamentally transforming the urban built form, the way businesses do business, and how people work, live and recreate. Technological changes enable citizens to work more from local hubs and home, potentially negating the need to commute to city centres. As shopping behaviours and commuting shifts more and more to online, the telecommunications infrastructure and amenity to support these changes will become more urgently required.
Urban planning and policy needs to be developed in a way that takes account of these paradigm shifts and at a national level to ensure consistency across Australia and equitable access to 21st century technology and its benefits.
With all capital cities planning and implementing strategic approaches to the sustainable development of the cities, and given the funding role that the Australian Government has, it is considered appropriate that key standardised metrics are developed and agreed between all cities so that the cities can demonstrate their commitment and contribution to the national objectives across economic, social, environment and governance themes.
Whilst the CCCLM welcomes the work of the Australian Government’s Cities Unit in the development of the National Cities Performance Framework, the CCCLM considers a sustainable development benchmark would give clear information to State, Territory and local government planning authorities, developers and communities about the environmental and quality standards that sustainable development should achieve, and how these translate into practical building standards. Such benchmarks should be informed by existing examples of best practice, and make use of existing tools where possible.
The City Deals process (and other programs developed by various Australian Government in the past 20 years) whilst potentially powerful in the areas they are being deployed, are far too selective and specific and possibly too cumbersome to enable the agility required to take advantage of opportunities. For example, agglomeration benefits of linked clustered development have long been recognised overseas as generating significant
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 7
productivity benefits to cities, but in Australia there has been virtually no spatial innovation policy which results in reduced productivity outcomes for Federal and State/Territory governments from Australian cities. There is a clear leadership role the Australian government could take that achieves significant economic gains both locally and nationally.
5. CONCLUSION
Australia would greatly benefit from the Federal Government taking a leadership role in the strategic development of cities, together with State/Territory and city governments.
For too long discussion has taken place, inquiries held, whilst action and outcomes are limited. A national framework that includes all levels of government and a mechanism to develop strategic city policy needs to be in place. It is vital that the governance of Australia’s cities is better delivered and includes:
Long term and strategic planning - that extends well beyond political lifespans National projects that are agreed to, invested in and implemented by all levels of government and supported by appropriate evidence and analysis
Decisions and actions need to be taken and outcomes achieved for Australia’s cities to prosper and sustainably support the population growths we are anticipating.
With the appropriate planning and analysis, development of Australia’s cities will thrive and support continued sustainable growth. The current ad hoc approach to development is not going to achieve desired outcomes, and pits urban against regional communities for pockets of available funding. An approach that encompasses and supports the needs of Australia as whole, backed by rigorous analysis is required.
Inaction has direct economic costs, for example, according to BITRE6 avoidable costs of congestion for the Australian capital cities is estimated to be around $16.5 billion for the 2015 financial year, having grown from about $12.8 billion for 2010. BITRE ‘business-as-usual’ projections of these costs of metropolitan congestion rise to around $30 billion by 2030.
Whilst collaborative discussions are important, implementation of agreed outcomes is vital for our cities to remain sustainable, productive, liveable and socially inclusive.
6 https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/is_074.aspx
CCCLM submission: Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities inquiry August 2017 Page | 8