UDIA SUPPORTS THE ORDERLY ROLL OUT OF LAND FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER IT RECOGNISES THAT, IN A PROPONENT DRIVEN SYSTEM, THE LAND OWNERS MAY NOT WANT TO, OR BE ABLE TO, DEVELOP WHEN IT IS THEIR “TURN.”
When the major strategic planning strategy, Directions 2031, was first being developed under the then newly elected Barnett Government, we worked with the Department of Planning on “sustainability criteria” for the assessment of future proposals which sat outside the areas currently being considered by government for development.
The criteria were never meant to be a free pass for development as it was agreed that, to be considered, those projects should deliver high quality outcomes for future residents.
The essence of those discussions has been included in the Greater Bunbury Scheme and includes the provision of utilities, transport, open space and communication in a timely and efficient way. Unfortunately the opportunity for rezoning has been restricted to areas already identified by government.
The criterion includes access to jobs, services and recreation with no net negative impact on the performance of the existing sub-regional road, bus, rail and freight network. Developers already fund extensions to transport networks so, whilst this is expensive, it is not necessarily a show stopper.
A diversity of housing must be delivered to meet the needs of the population and employment opportunities fostered through the provision of “employment” lands.
Avoidance of Risk is another criterion, and includes conflicts with other current or planned land use. Land must have a safe evacuation route for flood and bushfire and avoid physical constraints such as highly erodible or steep sites.
Proposed developments must also deliver “Quality and Equity of Services” such as health, education, legal, recreational, cultural and relevant government services. This one is a little grey because development can be stopped because of inadequate government services but with our rapidly growing populations, services are often struggling to keep up with demand.
The final criterion relates to natural resources and environmental protection.
In the original discussion with the Department of Planning the intent was that the land identified in government strategies would be the focus of government services and infrastructure planning. The sustainability criteria were to be used to assess proposals which sat outside of those areas to ensure they could viably deliver the infrastructure and deliver a quality lifestyle for residents whilst providing a safety-net for lot supply. Something has been lost in translation.