Monday, February 07, 2005
SEQ Regional Plan update

Under pressure from regional Councils, infrastructure creaking under the weight of excess demand and the possibility of seeing a city emerge that stretched 200km from the Gold Coast to Noosa, the Queensland State Government has pulled out all the stops to produce a draft South East Queensland Regional Plan. The deadline for comments on the draft SEQ Regional Plan is 28th February.

The draft Plan has three broad objectives:

1. Allocate enough land behind an urban footprint to accommodate higher density urban growth to 2026 (or 1 million people)


2. Support alternative activity centres and integrate land use and transport


3. Remove some land-zoning decisions from Councils to protect ‘Regional Landscape and Rural Production’ (RLRP) areas from continued sub-division.

The government agency charged with drawing up and implementing the plan, the Office of Urban Management, is now in the process of dredging through the thousands of submissions. It is estimated that there will have been some 10,000 responses by the end of the month.

Evidence from press reports, letters to the editor and opinions raised at the many meetings, show that responses will fall into five broad categories: Developers and land-owners on the regulatory margins; Councils and other public agencies; Community submissions; Rural production communities; and Environmental groups.

1. Developers, large and small: Most submissions are specific requests to amend the regulatory maps to shift land parcels from one side of a policy boundary to another, namely, to allow sub-division and development of land, which is now potentially ‘locked-away’.

   Over the years, many large developers have been quietly stashing away substantial plots of land on the assumption (based on ‘so far, so good’) that it would be rezoned by the council and money making could commence. On a smaller scale, individual land-holders have been holding out for a superannuation bonus from sub-dividing their plot, selling it off and enjoying their retirement.
   

   Both these groups have been speculating that future rezoning and/or sub-division would improve the value of their holdings. The Regional Plan has put the kybosh on much of this – and no compensation will be due. The Regional Planning Minister has been at pains to point out that you do not have planning approval until you have planning approval.

   Most large developers can afford to take the financial hit or lobby long and hard enough to ensure the regulatory maps are amended to suit their requirements. Small time speculators will not have this luxury.
   

   Of course, developer and business groups do not argue for changes out of their own self-interest; theirs are ‘moral’ objections to the Plan. They are simply seeking to protect the interests of your average battling Aussie. Urban growth boundaries and increased housing densities impinge on the right of landowners to build the home of their dreams.

   The urban footprint has allocated enough land to accommodate the population growth at densities that are little higher than currently experienced in suburban Brisbane. The Plan will curtail rural residential (“acreage”) and focus developer energies on redeveloping brownfield sites within existing urban areas And whilst this might be not be what the building industry exactly wants, it is the primary stated aim of the Regional Plan and a move towards less environmentally destructive growth.
   

   Instead of new communities leapfrogging existing suburbs to the cheaper greenfield sites on the margins, consolidated development should occur, protecting green space and regulating for a more environmentally sustainable SEQ. (That said, it is planned that the vast majority of new dwelling to 2026 will still occur on previously undeveloped land.)

   
   
2. Council submissions: Council submissions will be generally prosaic and supportive, with only some minor additions and clarifications put forward. This is expected, as the South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (SEQROC) has been the most vociferous in bringing this matter to the attention of the State Government.
   

   A number of gaps, some substantial, have so far been recognised, but most submissions will be of nuance with only minor amendments to the policy boundaries.

   The only daylight between the State and SEQROC lies in the provision (or lack of perceived provision) of infrastructure; from roads to water to schools and utilities. State commitments will be detailed in a (later) Regional Infrastructure Plan. However, SEQROC has concerns with this as it is being conceived with consultation with both local and Commonwealth Government and could suffer from a lack of complementarity.
   

   The only notable exceptions to the harmony will be the submissions from one or two rural councils, deeply concerned over development restrictions in the rural areas. In Boonah Shire, for example, over 98% of the land area is within the regional landscape designation.

   
   
3. Community submissions from public meetings: To its credit, the State has undertaken widespread community consultation. The Regional Plan has been the most engaged consultation process ever.
   
   Despite being a plan to manage urban growth, most city dwellers will remain relatively unaffected by the regulatory provisions. They may see an acceleration of existing trends, towards transport orientated and higher density dwellings, but the Regional Plan has taken only a light-touch approach to regulating development within the urban footprint. Zoning here will remain within the purview of Councils.
   

   But rural dwellers will be significantly affected and, as a result, public meetings out in the shires have been keenly attended. The Plan will limit opportunities for rural activity centres to expand significantly and will curtail existing major centres from sprawling into surrounding green space. Regulatory provisions ban the continued sub-division of these areas.

   “That will do nicely”, has been the cordial response from the typical rural residential dweller who commutes into work by car. Not only is their rural amenity protected, but the ban on further sub-division and ‘urban development’ within the regional landscape area will improve their property prices substantially, as supply of new rural housing stock becomes more scarce.
   

   However – and this is point not lost on the bureaucrats - rural communities have also put forward much more sophisticated objections than simple NIMBYism, with many arguments attacking the presumptions on which the Regional Plan is built, which assumes that population growth is inevitable, sustainable and good.

   
   
4. Rural production communities: More traditional rural communities, still engaged in that business once called ‘farming’, see the Regional Plan as an unfair limit on their opportunity to expand.
   

   The primary objective of the Regional Plan (indeed it is “Desired Regional Outcome #1”) is a “Healthy and diverse regional landscape where key environmental, natural resource and rural production areas are protected, enhanced, used sustainably and adaptively managed”. For the rural community, this outcome is nothing more than a paradox. Protecting the scenic amenity of the regional landscape area can only be at the expense of limiting development in these areas.

   The Regional Plan will only allow for a minium-100 hectare sub-division in the rural areas. This is to protect productive agricultural areas from being further whittled away into unproductive hobby farms and ‘acreage’ rural residential plots (that need all that space to park the 3 vehicles each property typically has).
   
   

   In reality, in SEQ rural production has been beating a steady retreat, financially supported by the slow seepage of farmland to developers. This has led to huge swathes of the Sunshine and Gold Coast hinterland being transformed into mid-density masterplanned residential developments. In cutting off this line of credit, rural production in SEQ is now forced to compete in an international commodity market, or adapt to appropriate new rural economic opportunities such as promoting their food provenance and the supply of locally grown, organic produce. But this will only be possible if zoning approval can be obtained to support changing business needs.

   The agricultural community’s ambivalence towards the Regional Plan is justified. Many see the Plan patronisingly assign rural areas the role of play-things of city-dwellers, providing recreational, nature-based and scenic amenity opportunities to weekenders driving out from the urban centres to visit quaint curiosities. The implications of this being that lifelong farmers must re-skill to staff tea-shops and ice cream kiosks, whilst their communities are barred from reaping the benefits of the financial opportunities of the booming Queensland ‘Smart’ economy.
   


5. Environmental groups: From one perspective, environmental groups will see much to commend in the implementation of the SEQ Regional Plan. Green space, natural environment and coastal habitats have all been protected from further development. Although urban green space has no designated protection in the Regional Plan, there would be little incentive for councils to amend any current urban zoning. The Regional Plan has also upset some big developers, so whatever the outcome, good or bad, green groups can get some satisfaction from seeing that big business does not always get its own way.
   

   However, the Regional Plan does fall short of what most green groups were calling for and their submissions will highlight this. It does not seek to strengthen the Integrated Planning Act 1997 definition of ‘sustainable development’ (which is as robust as wet tissue) and it does not have ‘ecologically sustainable development’ as an explicit objective. It does not allude to any strategy which would seek to increase the amount of protected estate in SEQ, either through buy-out or negotiating access agreements with private landholders and there is only passing comment on implementing demand management of for transport, water and energy infrastructure. Most pressingly, the Regional Infrastructure Plan (released in May 2005) will be unlikely to include major policy commitments to any public transport programs.
   

Of course, the SEQ Regional Plan is simply a planning instrument and, as such, is neither the panacea to an ecologically sustainable South East Queensland, a developer’s free lunch, nor a way of securing a better future for rural producers.

The issues and interests at stake are complex, ingrained and generally incompatible. Statutory designation of productive and natural habitat areas should protect these areas from the continued encroachment of the unsustainable, rural residential invasion. In addition, sparse housing is costly, both to the environment and the Treasurer, to service, requiring new roads and long utility supply lines. It leads to more vehicle trips, more greenhouse gas and unfit kids. Unfortunately, it is also the accommodation of choice for both the developer and the resident. Developers love it because it is cheap and sells well (all bundled up in glossy ‘lifestyle’ packages) and the residents love it because it is cheap and closer to what the ad-men dictate is the ideal Queensland life: somewhere on the edge of paradise.

But protecting productive areas from development does not guarantee the survival of the agricultural sector – that’s up to the consumer - nor does it necessarily lead to better environmental outcomes as acreage properties are commonly more conducive to wildlife protection than intensively productive farms. Both these goals still require good government, the right strategies and right-thinking consumers.

At best, the SEQ Regional Plan, alongside subsidiary strategies mandating sustainable housing, rural futures and water and energy efficiency, for example, will promote ‘development’ that is less stressful on the environment and protect the diminishing natural habitat that remains in SEQ. But a truly sustainable future, is still miles off.

This is because the Regional Plan has demonstrated the Queensland Government’s commitment to pursuing a policy of allowing continued and rapid population growth. True ecological sustainability will never be achieved with such a commitment. The public consultation has revealed a growing sense of unease over such high levels of population growth (and hence consumption growth, natural habitat destruction and pollution) and many have questioned the basis on which the Regional Plan was predicated. To be sure, the majority of people probably remain ambivalent to this, and a fair proportion would strongly support continued growth (it being ‘good for business’), but a growing rift is emerging between the politician’s growth rhetoric and people’s visions on the future of Queensland (and Australia).

Australia, as a continent, is renowned for its poor soils and fickle climate. As a result, its environment and the level of resources, available to everything that scrapes a living off this rock, is precarious. Western society brought many new technologies and plant and animal species which have increased its productivity vastly, but it is recognised that Australia consumes much, much more of its gross biotic quota than generated. Only New Zealand (with 3 million people) lives within its means, according to Greenpeace.

Of course, politicians adore ‘growth’. It dignifies their rhetoric that people wish to move Queensland and it flatters economic growth figures, which is touted as the sole measure of individual well-being. It is a very simple equation: more people = more GDP = re-election. But limits to this growth, without destroying natural habitat and the environment, are very real.

How this discourse plays out in democratic terms, while the mainstream political parties continue to support growth will be interesting. But small steps may be adequate. Currently, merely achieving open, rhetoric-free debate on population caps is problematic. It is attacked from the right and religious right as smacking of utilitarianism and secularism and attacked from the left as being coercive. The only persuasive critique of continued population expansion is from an ecological perspective, which is a clear target for the ‘business as usual’ / ‘whey-hey, never had it so good’ brigade (aka the ‘battling’ Aussie).

These are future battles. And, as a recent immigrant to this region groaning under the rate of growth, I will watch with vested interest.

---