NSW Urban Feasibility Model Evaluation as a Development Negotiation Instrument

A crucial element of modern regional and urban planning is the evaluation of urban viability. Due to the significance of the two primary components of urban growth—economy and population—this planning tool is predicted to play a key role in the Australian developmental debates as well as those involving New South Wales (NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2011). The New South Wales Planning and Environment Department created the Urban Feasibility Model (UFM) as a cutting-edge planning tool to address regional and urban planning dynamics while maintaining the State’s master plan’s direction. The principal aim of the model is breaking down the planning framework complexity through creating transparency information that can reach a wide range of stakeholders particularly the developers and property investors using advanced technology (NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2011). Besides, the tool is an approach that is government-based and used to value property and land sites in determining housing as well as employment demand in future development. Therefore, the critique concerned with how this tool assists in serving the interest of the public in planning context particularly in development negotiation is conceivable to put on the discussion.

The primary aim of this paper is to provide an outstanding evaluation based on evidence about the urban development negotiation tension including the prospective performance of New South Wales’ Urban Feasibility Model (UFM) on this tension. Consequently, case studies and rationales will be used to deliver an appropriate answer regarding the two aspects correlation. Besides, the concluding remarks will give a general thought afterwards.

The New South Wales (NSW) Framework and Australian Planning Gestalt

Since the establishment of the Australian Constitution as Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900, the central authority of developing and planning Australian land belongs to the territories and states. The logic of this fact is that the integrative planning concept of urban land exploitation, environment as well as its frameworks was not a concern back 1901 during the formation of Australian Federation (Gurran, 2007). Conversely, the urgency of designing distinctive accountabilities concerning environment using a legitimate charter titled as “Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment”, was introduced in the year 1992 (Commonwealth Department of Environment, 2015). The primary objective of this treaty manuscript is emphasising the code conduct for Territories and States, Local government, and Australian Commonwealth concerning policy boundaries and environmental development (Commonwealth Department of Environment, 2015). Moreover, there is a comprehensive elaboration on the specific responsibilities of each authority in section 2 of this ”Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment”.

According to the treaty manuscript in section 2, the Federal government, as well as Commonwealth government, have a most important duty of conserving and preserving global and national subjects. These reserves encompass Wetlands of worldwide significance enumerated in the Ramsar Pact, Listed Ecological communities and endangered species. Besides, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Migratory species protected by transnational treaties, water resource including nuclear actions plus uranium mines, substantial coal mining advancements as well as seam gas development are included (NSW Department of planning and Infrastructure 2011).

The Territories and States Jurisdiction are overseeing all the importance non-environmental and environmental subjects exclusive of the Commonwealth government ecological subjects. The management sector encompasses establishing of legislation, instrument as well as policy frameworks that involves conservation, housing supply, environment, industrial relations, public infrastructure, communal amenities, and public transport. However, regarding the Local Councils, their duties include development and implementation of environmental plans for locally based issues (Commonwealth Department of Environment, 2015). The ecological matters that are local primarily concern with community or neighbourhood matters such as sports centres, waste management, parks, libraries, and building.

Figure 1: The Responsibility Hierarchy of the Australian Planning Framework

(Source: Gurran, 2007)

After OECD raised campaign regarding policy making and urban matters at the national level in the year 2011, the Commonwealth government encouraged imitative concerning the need to have unified partnership and collaboration within the municipal planning charter of Australia (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011). This manifestation led to a nationwide strategic plan known as ”Our Cities, Our Future”. Numerous critical findings of the policy are reflecting on the significance of having an urban planning policy that is national.

From the New South Wales (NSW) perspective, the planning charter has as well developed in the hierarchal model. These include Sydney Metropolitan Area, Regional areas strategic planning, NSW legislation planning, and Primacy Growth Areas. The NSW statutory planning is incorporating the 1979 Environmental Assessment and Planning Act as the primary guidelines for designing and implementing regional as well as urban development throughout all states. In this act, Local Environmental Plans (LEP) including the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) for local Government Area (LGA) are incorporated. Likewise, several pertinent guidelines for regional and urban planning are also included, for example, the 2000 Water Management Act, the 1977 Heritage Act, Roads Act of 1993, and the 1997 Rural Fires Act. Regarding the New South Wales full range of premeditated plan, there are regional development plans for Orana and West Central, North Coast, Murray-Murrumbidgee, Hunter, Tablelands, Central Coast, Illawarra, South East, and England North West (Gurran, 2007). For instance, concerning Sydney Metropolitan Area, a plan is in place for developing Sydney and its Districts (NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2011).

Figure 4: The New South Wales Planning Instruments (Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment, 2011)

Ultimately, the state government has an ongoing course for developing new planning concept in New South Wales. The central revolution of the White Paper, a more original proposal, which was an innovative New South Wales Planning System of 2013, is supporting the new period of efficient, modest, precise strategic planning through refining community-based development (NSW Department of Planning & Environment, 2015).

The Australian Development Negotiation for Urban Planning Framework Case Studies

Many case studies that can be used to describe the New South Wales’ urban development negotiation issues are there. In this study paper, only three study cases will be used.

1. Case Study 1: Barangaroo Development

Number one is the Barangaroo Mega Skyscraper building plan. Strong opposition and criticism are coming from many perspectives as well as the application process for development and cultural recognition. The societal movement advocates and indigenous people undertake rigorous activism against the less native title recognition in the development due to lack of aesthetic consultation in the course of the project. Conversely, there is an overlapping controversy of development application process in the expansion of the number of storeys by the contractor, and the Land Lease, direct to the state government. This situation has generated disputes between Sydney Observatory and City of Sydney (Sydney Morning Herald 2015).

Figure 2: Barangaroo Development Controversy (Source: Sydney Morning Herald 2015)

2. Case Study 2: Sydney Railway Project

This second case study is about political advocacy and community demonstrations whose aim is to decline the Randwick Sydney Light Railway project in the Eastern Suburbs of the New South Wales. The aforementioned is due to the possible threat of the project to the local significance of High Cross park environment. This crusade was effective in compelling the state government to review the project’s first phase as well as redesigning new routes, which maintain the High Cross Park. Many different stakeholders such as Mayor and Randwick Counsellors, Transport Minister for NSW, Randwick Community and Environmental activists (Daily Telegraph, 2015).

Figure 3: Randwick Sydney Light Railway Project Controversy: (Source: Daily Telegraph 2015)

3. Case Study 3: Gladesville Shopping Village

The third case study is about the Tired retail centre situated just behind the strip shopping centre on the Victoria Road. There is poor connections as well as poor access of the Victoria Road via the site. Besides, around the site there is unsafe pedestrian access. In this case, the car park owned by the Council is part of this revitalization. The developer assimilated extra land as using current locally heritage registered building to be part of this revitalization. However, due to poor engagement attempts, led to fuming community activism, which compelled the developer to meet with all community stakeholders directly in understanding history, issues, and perspectives surrounding the redevelopment. This upheld transparency regarding the engagement purpose and later established trust. Engagement is an open spectrum, which encompasses negotiation and clarity concerning what need to be changed and not. Besides, respect, integrity, and honesty along with properness and receptiveness are significant ingredients for community engagement. Therefore, it is good to plan, practice, implement, and evaluate.

Figure 5: Rigorous Engagement Process (Source: Lecturer Notes-Straightalk, 2017)

The Urban Feasibility Model Review (UFM)

The Urban Feasibility Model (UFM) is designing software developed by the Environment and Planning Department of New South Wales. This instrument is of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP), GIS, Development Control Plan (DCP), and development feasibility formulas. The tool is meant to majorly facilitate strategic planning, for example, Sydney 2036 ex-Metropolitan plan, whose aim is infrastructure planning for the growing Sydney (Sydney Morning Herald, 2015). The primary objective of UFM is to put proposed housing development sites that are under LEP in comparatively long-term planning. Through evaluating the housing potential based on the sales prices, developmental costs, and planning regulations, housing supply deficit can be noticed and monitored (NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2011). Identifying supply underperformances in housing will assist the government of New South Wales to give housing supply blueprint including housing preparations as well as strategising on infrastructure in the future. According to the Environment and Planning Department of NSW, the software is an independent peer-reviewed invention (Sydney Morning Herald, 2015). The program’s inputs are sourced from a multiplicity of disciplinary submissions as well as the Local councils, academic institutions, developers groups, government agencies, and property finance.

The PIA New South Wales Infrastructure and Planning Department’s UFM presentation of the 2011 State Conference similarly states that this software is designed to aid urban developers and planners in incorporating the development task (NSW Department of Planning & Environment, 2015). The essential part of this software is that it assists in linking the LEP planning language to the practical significances to retort the question of what is the evidence-based evaluation in defining the LEP Zoning (NSW Department of Planning & Environment, 2015). Moreover, other UFM benefits when it comes to development negotiation are minimalising the tension between development industries and intergovernmental as the valuation platform for development is integrative, specific, interactive, and measurable. The idea of having a development system and an integration planning is vital for New South Wales planning framework.

However, besides the benefits of UFM, there is much criticism, which needs to be addressed considering the complexity in the planning realisation. Primarily, the Urban Feasibility Model (UFM) is an economic-based instrument, and all the feasibility assumptions mainly come from the community of developers (NSW Department of Planning & Environment, 2015). The probability of underestimating the significance of local environmental resources such as community amenities, parks, heritage sites, and native title can lead to political divergence and violation of societal rights. Another critic is the probability of dispiriting community engagement plans when it comes to community responsibility, as it is the critical objective in the restructuring of NSW development framework (NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2011). Likewise, the generalisation of local perspective in the Urban Feasibility Model should be redesigned to capture concrete conditions of the sites under LEP.

Conclusion

In summary, it is evident from the above discussions that Urban Feasibility Model (UFM) is an essential innovation to the urban planning that is appropriate for creating an exceptional collaboration. Besides, it promotes understanding of all planning stakeholders as well as the New South Wales and Australian development-planning framework. It is useful in removing the tension and gap between planners, developers, and state governments. The reciprocal understanding in the evaluation of the land property through Urban Feasibility Model will assist to execute the LEP and Regional Growth Strategic plan, particularly in sustaining infrastructure and housing supply.

The Urban Feasibility Model critics are grounded on the less local acknowledgement of two cases of Randwick Sydney Light Railway and Barangaroo mega-development. The local characteristic of both sites is conceivably underestimated to be fewer significance conditions in the feasibility studies. For instance, the Barangaroo development plan, the State did not mention to the local council submissions about the public interest drawbacks interest when the developer was adding additional storeys. Another substantiation of Randwick is that the railway plan was underrated because of the local significance of the High Cross-park environmental asset. The aforementioned is the weakness of the UFM that need to be improved to attain the NSW Planning Framework new vision that concentrates on intensifying community engagement.

References

Commonwealth Department of Environment 2015, Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, viewed on 14 October 2015, < https://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/intergovernmental-agreement>.

Daily Telegraph 2015, ‘Sydney Light Rail: High Cross Park and 90-year-old war memorial saved from light rail interchange’, 17 September 2015, viewed on 16 October 2015, < http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/sydney-light-rail-high-cross-park-and-90-year-old-war-memorial-saved-from-light-rail-interchange/story-fngr8h22-1227531435575>.

Department of Planning and Environment 2015, Plans Your Area, NSW Government, viewed on 13 October 2015,< http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/#>.

Gurran N, 2007, Australian Urban Land Use Planning: Introducing Statutory Planning Practice in New South Wales, Sydney University Press, viewed on 14 October 2015, < https://books.google.com.au/books?id=h4IlWl3ZHHUC&q=australia+planning#v=snippet&q=debate&f=false>.

NSW Departement of Planning and Infrastructure 2011, Urban Feasibility Model (UFM), viewed on 18 October 2015, .

Sydney Morning Herald 2015, ”You can’t stop change’, says Barangaroo architect Chris Wilkinson”, May 28, 2015, viewed on 16 October 2105, .