U R BA N
SPRING 2013
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?
FEATURE PROJECT: PARK VUE ESTATE - OXLEY
DRAFT REGIONAL PLANS STRATEGIC CROPPING LAND AWARD OF EXCELLENCE – JOSEPH BRADY PARK REDEVELOPMENT ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
-AVERAGE DEVELOPMENT COSTS -POLICY UPDATES
U RBA N THIS ISSUE: URBAN URBA N
W E LCO M E TO U RURBA BANN
SNAP SHOTS
Urban Infrastructure- Where Does The Buck Stop? Draft Darling Downs Regional Plan JFP Linkedin to Social Media New Standard Increases Sewer Easements Draft Central Queensland Regional Plan
Welcome to the Spring 2013 edition of URBANe, JFP’s quarterly e-newsletter.
3 4 4 5 6
Calliope, Agnes Water & 1770 Local Plans 6 Easement Arrangements Simplified 7 Getting to know SARA 7 Strategic Cropping Land
8
R EGU LA R FEATUR ES Welcome
2
Policy Updates
9
Average Development Costs
10
Feature Project
11
EDITORIAL TEAM Editor John Pappas Graphic Design Emma Jane Deacon IT Support Tony Barr Subscriptions Tamara Drake Copy Editors Thierry Marot Leanne Schokman
CON TAC T U S BRI SBANE JFP House - 76 Ernest Street, South Brisbane PO Box 3634 South Brisbane Qld 4101 P 07 3012 0100 F 07 3846 1959
SUNS HI NE COA ST
It seems that the mood across the business community, and in particular the Urban Development Industry, is matching the season. The election of a new Federal Government seems to have given birth to a new sense of optimism and put a spring into the step of some. A reported surge in business confidence, talk of a blossoming housing bubble and enquiry/sales rates that have started to flower has some buzzing about a residential development revival. We will all, I’m sure, watch with interest to see what climate will be created for business as a result of this Spring of Optimism. This issue of URBANe includes an opinion piece discussing the funding of Urban Infrastructure. The Queensland Government is currently reviewing how Infrastructure is funded and will look to reform the Infrastructure Charging System in time for FY2014/15. The Government should be applauded for being prepared to try to unravel a difficult and seemingly intractable problem of resolving who pays for the infrastructure required to service our urban environments. The Queensland Government has also been busy releasing Draft Regional Plans for Central Queensland and the Darling Downs. Both of these seem to be less prescriptive than previous Regional Plans and may be an indication of what we can expect when the SEQ Regional Plan is reviewed next year. There has also been some news regarding Easements recently. More easements are likely to be required over sewers in the future while the arrangements for easements on small lots have been simplified. JFP is proud to present the ParkVue Estate at Oxley as the Feature Project in this edition. All of JFP’s disciplines and experience were required to overcome significant obstacles to transform an old brickworks site into a park focused residential community that has been well received by the marketplace. As usual, regular features such as Average Development Costs and Policy Updates can also be found in this edition of URBANe. We trust that reading this edition of URBANe leaves you feeling that same sense of optimism expressed by many during this Spring season.
237-239 Bradman Avenue, Maroochydore PO Box 6 Maroochydore Qld 4558 P 07 5443 2500 F 07 5443 4759
CENTRAL QUEENSLAND 59 Goondoon Street, Gladstone PO Box 172 Gladstone Qld 4680 P 07 4839 4100 F 07 4972 5444
w w w. j f p .co m . a u
By John Pappas Editor
URBAN N URBA
OPINI ON
URBAN INFRASTRUC TURE
WH ER E D O ES T H E B UC K STO P? A discussion paper reviewing the Infrastructure Planning and Charging Framework in Queensland was released by the State Government on the 1st July 2013. The paper sought to gather and express stakeholder views about possible reform options to the Infrastructure Charging System which would deliver Development Feasibility, Local Authority Financial Sustainability, Certainty and Equity. While all stakeholders expressed support for a system based on Certainty and Equity the viewpoints expressed in the discussion paper often pointed to a considerable divide between options that support Development Feasibility and those supporting Local Authority Financial Sustainability. Anyone who has dealt with Priority Infrastructure Plans, Infrastructure Agreements or Infrastructure Offsets/Credits in the past will have viewed the highly technical, complex and somewhat murky sphere surrounding the planning, funding and provision of Urban Infrastructure in Queensland. Essentially, the complexity around Trunk Infrastructure can be reduced to three questions: What is Trunk Infrastructure? Who will pay for it? How do we decide who pays for what? These three questions create the structure for the discussion paper which is composed in the following three parts; Infrastructure Fundamentals
The Government is to be applauded for bringing the myriad of issues surrounding Trunk Infrastructure into greater focus. At present there is considerable inconsistency across Local Authorities about the scope and identification of Trunk Infrastructure and the elements which define how it will be delivered (Conditions, Offsets, etc). The discussion paper puts forward many good suggestions on how these issues could be defined more clearly. However, any new elements put in place will only be effective if they are supported by an Infrastructure Cap at an appropriate dollar level. The Government has elected to delay considering the level of any new Infrastructure Cap until feedback has been received and decisions on the elements of the system are made. It has been suggested by industry stakeholders, such as the UDIA, that any review to the Cap must ensure that Queensland is competitive compared to other states and that regional differences are recognised. However positive the proposals put forward by the State are in clarifying the system for providing Trunk Infrastructure, it is suggested that they still fail to unravel the Gordian Knot of how to effectively fund these works. The Government’s paper seeks to clarify the balance between funding from either Councils or Developers. Its approach naturally pits these stakeholders towards two opposing extremes while remaining silent on the roles of the State and Commonwealth Government in funding Urban Infrastructure.
It begs the question: If the State is demanding particular growth targets from Local Authorities to be delivered by Developers, then do they not have a subsequent responsibility to play a part in funding the investment (i.e. Trunk Infrastructure) required to achieve that growth? Given the current condition and politics surrounding both the Queensland and Commonwealth Government Budgets, it seems unlikely that either will be prepared to give a Buck towards funding Trunk Urban Infrastructure anytime soon, although the Commonwealth: consideration of Infrastructure Bonds offers some promise. While clarifying the rules of engagement will help, the incentive still remains for Councils and Developers to find creative ways to try to pass the Buck for funding Urban Infrastructure to each other. Until the State or Commonwealth decide to invest in the delivery of Urban Infrastructure, which supports their objectives, the Buck will still ultimately be passed onto new dwelling owners who will continue to see their purchasing power eroded through reduced housing affordability.
Using his background in Engineering and Town Planning, John has negotiated a significant number of complex Infrastructure Agreements for JFP’s Clients over the years. He is also a member of the UDIA’s Infrastructure
Charges
Sub-Committee.
Charging Mechanisms Charge Elements.
U R BA N
3
AN
UR BAN U RBAN
SN APSHOTS NAPSH OTS
DR AFT DARLING D OWNS R EGIONA L P L A N The Department of State Development and Infrastructure Planning has released the Draft Darling Downs Regional Plan. The Draft Plan outlines the State’s land use intentions for the region through to 2033.
PLA’s are those areas of the region identified to have the greatest growth potential. To encourage this growth the State outlines its intention to buffer sensitive settlement areas from resource extraction and exploration activities.
Upon reviewing the Draft Plan, it is evident the State Government has this time approached regional planning in a less prescriptive way than in the past. Rather than enforcing strict boundaries upon local governments, the Draft Plan positively focuses on addressing the region’s key land use conflicts.
PAA’s are those areas of the region identified to hold highest agricultural value. To ensure they are protected from encroaching land uses the Draft Plan outlines Co-existence Criteria, which are to be adopted
The Darling Downs encompasses some of Queensland’s most resource rich and agriculturally productive land. While agriculture has been a traditional mainstay of the region’s economy, rapid growth in the resource sector has led to increased competition for land, infrastructure and services. The Draft Plan seeks to address land use conflicts arising from this competition to ensure the region’s communities and economy continue to prosper with a degree of certainty and investor confidence. Core strategies to achieve this include classifying strategic land as Priority Living Areas (PLA) and Priority Agricultural Areas (PAA).
“it is evident the State Government has this time approached regional planning in a less prescriptive way than in the past’’ into local planning instruments. At this time, the State is developing the Co-existence Criteria in consultation with Key Industry Groups and Local Government.
In addition to guiding land uses, the Draft Plan highlights the need for an efficient freight distribution network, endorsing 11 key Infrastructure Projects; including the 2nd Toowoomba Range Crossing, upgrades to the Warrego Highway and the provision of new rail facilities. The Draft Plan concludes by outlining the State’s regional intents for economic growth, housing, environment, heritage, hazards and safety.
By Russell Buckley Urban Planner
J F P L I NK E DIN TO S O C I A L M ED IA JFP has taken the plunge into the virtual world of Social Media with the launch of a Company Profile on LinkedIn. As a social networking website for people in professional occupations, LinkedIn provides JFP with another method of connecting with our Clients and industry contacts virtually. For those networked on LinkedIn, we will be using the website as one way of letting the Contacts who follow JFP know more about what is happening in our world.
U R BA N
4
URBAN U RBAN
S N APSHOTS
JFP are proud to announce that the Joseph Brady Park Redevelopment project for Ipswich City Council, completed in conjunction with Dig It Landscapes, has received an Award of Excellence for the Best Queensland Park from Parks & Leisure Australia. Refer to the Autumn 2013 Edition for details of this project.
NEW STANDARD INC R EA S ES S EWER EA S EM E NTS There are new Technical Standards for the Design and Construction of Water Supply and Sewerage Assets within South East Queensland. These Standards are referred to as the ‘SEQ Code’. The State Government gazetted the SEQ Code on 1 July 2013 so it is now in force. The Service Providers covered by this code are Gold Coast City Council, Logan City Council, Queensland Urban Utilities, Redland Water and Unity Water. How does the SEQ Code affect residential developments? One of the significant changes relates to service corridor allocations. In particular, Unity Water moving sewer mains from the frontage of allotments into the road reserve. This can cause issues if there is also a water main in the footpath, as there is to be a minimum of 1.0 metre clearance between these two services. Another major change is the extent of easements now required over sewers. Previously Urban Utilities (QUU) did not require easements over sewers in lots but now a minimum 3.0 metre wide easement is required with the sewer located centrally within the easement.
New to all SEQ Service Providers is the requirement for a 1.0 metre wide easement extending along a side boundary from the front to the rear boundary to facilitate access to a maintenance structure located in a lot. This has the potential to clash with zero lot boundaries. Unitywater has confirmed the easement does not need to directly line up with the structure, it is essentially an access easement to access the 3.0 metre easement in the rear of the lot. The easement issue has the potential to affect zero lot boundaries and will certainly have an impact on lot valuations. At an industry briefing on 29th August 2014, QUU advised that they were having a rethink on the easement over the sewer line, but would likely keep the 1.0 metre wide access easement to structures. It is imperative that Urban Designers, as well as Civil Designers take this into consideration when designing the lot layout, as well as the service layout, to minimise the impact of this new requirement. Centered: is a pictorial representation of what the new easement standard may look like on a typical development:
By Tom McKinney Director - Engineering
U R BA N
5
AN
BAN U RUR BAN
S NAPSHOTS
D R A F T C E NTRAL QU EENSLAND REGI O NA L P LAN A Draft Regional Plan has been developed for the Central Queensland (CQ) Region, which contains some of Queensland’s most significant mining and agricultural resources. The Plan outlines a regional vision which covers Banana Shire, the Central Highlands Region, Woorabinda Aboriginal Shire, the Rockhampton and Gladstone Regions. Unlike previous Regional Plans, the Draft Central Queensland Plan does not mandate cadastrally based growth boundaries. Nor does it contain State Planning Regulatory Provisions which, in earlier Regional Plans, stifled Urban Development. The main aims of the Draft Plan are to: Identify and protect the Region’s Priority Agricultural Land Uses from incompatible resource development. Some resource activities may be able to co-exist in these areas where they meet certain criteria. Protect the Region’s towns by mapping Priority Living Areas to allow for expansion. Identify Infrastructure Opportunities to support future growth. The Regional Plan applies to Local Governments when preparing or amending Town Plans and when assessing Development Applications where the Regional Plan is not appropriately reflected in the Planning Scheme.
As a long term member of the Central Queensland Urban Development Industry, with a history of nearly 50 years in the region, JFP welcomes the focus that the new CQ Regional Plan provides. We also welcome the State’s new approach to Regional Planning which seeks to address a smaller range of State Interests that are only relevant to a Region. Importantly, the Plan does not take a prescriptive approach to limiting development. This is a positive step which is likely to provide greater flexibility and innovation in land use planning, whilst still ensuring state interests are protected.
C AL L I O P E , AGNES WATE R & 1 7 70 LO C AL P L ANS Gladstone Regional Council has recently undertaken community visioning sessions with the communities of Calliope and Agnes Water/Seventeen Seventy. Initial sessions were held to identify current planning issues and a vision for each regional township. After this, two day workshops were then held with relevant Local and State Government stakeholders, who developed conceptual Draft Structure Plans based on feedback from the Communities. The Draft Structure Plans have not as yet been adopted as Council Policy. However, they do provide a general indication of local community issues and possible future land use options for the growth of Calliope and Agnes Water / Seventeen Seventy. It is expected that the Structure Plans will be developed further to inform the strategic direction of the new Gladstone Regional Council Planning Scheme, which is set to be released for consultation in 2014.
By Graeme Bews Manager Planning & Urban Design
U R BA N
6
AN
UR BAN U RBAN
SSNAP NAPSHOTS SH OTS
EASEMENT ARRANGEMENTS SIMPLIFIED New Legislation added into the Land Title Act 1994 this year should have a positive effect on Small Lot Subdivisions. Division 4AA was inserted into Part 6 of the Act to cover statutory easements in lots 300 square meters or less. Similar to statutory easements in a Community Titles Scheme, these can be created for 1 or more of the following purposes: support, shelter, projections, maintenance and roof water drainage. Under the new legislation only a simple document will be required to register these “High-density Development Easements”.
It is no longer necessary to survey Easements to cover shared part walls and small encroachments such as gutters and eaves. From a Surveyors perspective the Registrable Survey Plan should be a lot less complicated and easier to read. From a Developers perspective simplifying easement arrangements for smaller lots in “Terrace Style” housing with common walls should be a definite “marketing” bonus.
G E T TI NG TO K NOW SARA The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s (DSDIP) new referral process, commonly known as “SARA” – the “State Assessment Referral Agency”, has been in place for a few months now. The new system aims to deliver a streamlined and coordinated approach to development assessment. SARA is now the single point of contact and response for all State Government IDAS Referral Agencies, rather than the seven separate and often competing agencies which existed in the past. The benefits expected to flow from this new system include reduced timeframes and risk for the Development Industry along with the removal of duplication and inconsistency between multiple agencies.
Other key changes made to support SARA included: a reduction in the number of Referral Triggers, the creation of a new “Code” for all Referral Agency matters. This Code (known as ‘SDAP’) is similar to a Planning Scheme Code, and provides clarity on the criteria that a Proposal is expected to comply with. Prelodgement Meetings now being actively encouraged with DSDIP to provide greater consistency and resolve issues before the DA clock starts ticking. Overall, the new SARA System is expected to benefit the Development Assessment Process. It’s still too early to tell how effective SARA will be over the long term but, from JFP’s initial use of the system, it does show some promise. JFP will continue to monitor the effectiveness of SARA and provide further updates in future editions of URBANe.
U R BA N
7
AN
UR BAN U RBAN
S N APSHOTS
ST R AT EGIC C RO PPING LA ND By Graeme Bews Manager - Planning & Urban Design
The Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011 came into effect on the 30th January 2013. It aims to protect land that is highly suitable for cropping by generally avoiding development which results in permanent impact on Strategic Cropping Land (SCL) or Potential SCL. The Act also establishes a process to identify and validate land as SCL or Non-SCL. It is important to check the Department of Natural Resources and Mines’ SCL Trigger Maps to determine if your Site is identified as SCL or Potential SCL. If your Site is designated and is not exempt from assessment under the SCL Act, it may be necessary to prepare a Validation Application to challenge the SCL Designation. The following matters are exempt from SCL Assessment: Development in an Urban Area; an area zoned for Rural Residential or Future Rural Residential purposes; an Urban Footprint under a Regional Plan or State Planning Regulatory Provision; a Key Resource Area; Material Change of Use where the lot is less than 5 hectares; Reconfiguration of a Lot, where all lots are larger than 15 hectares; Development with a footprint of 750 square metres or less. If a Development, which is not exempt, is on SCL or Potential SCL then the Development Application must be referred to the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) for Concurrence Assessment. The Act will have major implications for development, unless exempt, located on SCL or Potential SCL land. In practice, the SCL provisions will have the greatest impact on Small Rural Subdivisions or Urban Development proposed for Rural Lands. For these in particular, it is critical that proponents identify the SCL Classification of their Site early so as to avoid adverse findings or lengthy delays.
U R BA N
8
URBAN S N APSHOTS U RBAN
P O LICY UPDAT ES Lower Oxley Creek Neighborhood Plan
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
After many years in the making, Brisbane City Council’s Lower Oxley Creek Neighbourhood Plan came into force on the 30th August 2013. This new Neighbourhood Plan will guide the future development of the suburbs of Heathwood and Pallara. There are some innovative provisions in the new Plan, including allowance for Small Lot Housing down to 250m² and Multi-Unit Densities as high as 1 dwelling per 200m² of site area in certain circumstances. As it relates to one of the last large greenfield development areas in Brisbane, the new Neighbourhood Plan will be a key policy document moving forward. Infrastructure Charges Council has released its Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution No.3 which became effective from the 1st July. Infrastructure Charges for Residential Developments have increased by $1,000 with 3+ bedroom dwellings now charge at $27,000 and 1 & 2 bedroom dwellings charged at $19,000.
Fee Structure
MORETON BAY REGIONAL COINCIL
Further to our note of the significant development related fee increases adopted by MBRC as at 1st July in the last edition of URBANe, we can thankfully advise that, following representations from Industry, Council has revised their fees down on the 16/7/13 to reflect a moderate increase in rates. The reduced rates are being applied retrospectively to payments made since the 1st July.
Maroochydore PDA
SUNSHINE COAST REGlONAL COUNCIL
In July 2013, the State Government announced that the Maroochydore City Centre will be a Priority Development Area (PDA) to fast-track its development as the new central business district for the Sunshine Coast. A Development Scheme for the PDA is being prepared which will provide for Retail, Commercial, Mixed Use and High and Medium Density Residential Development. Until the development scheme is finalised, development within the PDA is regulated under an Interim Land Use Plan (ILUP).
U R BA N
9
UR BAN U RBAN
S N APSHOTS
AV E R AG E DEVELOPMENT COSTS SOFTENING DEVELOPMENT COSTS DIP BELOW $100,000 PER LOT AV E R AGE COST PER LOT ( FY1 2 /1 3 )
~ $99,426 Increasing competition on fewer projects may go part of the way to explaining lower average construction costs for Financial Year 2012/13 as compared to previous years. The average cost to develop residential allotments in South-East Queensland has now dipped below the $100,000 per lot milestone. This means that average costs are back down to levels not seen since late 2010 and are approximately 10% lower than the highs experienced during 2011 and 2012. In addition to keener pricing from Civil Contractors, the broader application of the Infrastructure Charges Cap throughout the year may have also contributed to lower average costs.
Any further relief being proposed as part of the Infrastructure Charges Framework Review, currently being conducted by the State, may also lead to further softening in development costs. That could only be a boost to Housing Affordability and Queensland’s interstate competitiveness. These average costs are derived from development cost estimates completed by JFP on actual urban development proposals during FY2012/13. The costs cover the following items; Civil Works, Electrical/Telecommunications services, Landscape Works, Contingencies, Council fees, Infrastructure Charges, Consultant fees, GST on above items. The figures do not include any purchase costs, sales and marketing costs, land taxes, rates or any holding or financing related costs incurred in relation to urban development. Each project is unique so these figures should be viewed as a general guide only. To obtain accurate figures relevant to your own site contact JFP.
In the next issue of URBANe Feature project - Gasworks Plaza - Official Opening - October 10, 2013
U R BA N
10
E X- BR ICKWO RKS Q UA R RY T R A NSFO R M E D IN TO PA RK FO CUSE D R ESIDE NT IA L CO MM U NITY
The ex-Austral Brickworks Site, located at 170 Douglas St, Oxley has been the subject of a dramatic transformation into an attractive residential community ,focused on parkland, that has been well received by the marketplace. The collaborative efforts of JFP’s Urban Designers, Engineers, Surveyors, Landscape Architects and Arborist have been instrumental in taking the site from a disused quarry, with a long list of challenges, to an environmentally focused subdivision. The site contains 137 Residential Lots, 2 Townhouse Master Lot Sites and large Recreational Parkland. The Parkland, which is centrally located on a previously degraded section of Oxley Creek, has been completely rehabilitated through the incorporation of forested and riparian ecological areas. The creation of habitat through ponds, riffles and an intensive replanting program provides a haven for local fauna and flora that will be appreciated for years to come. In addition to the environmental benefits provided, the park also hosts an extensive neighbourhood play space which consists of a flying fox, a Corocord net structure, BBQ’s, shelters and open space surrounding which provides many avenues for natural play. Transforming the old Brickworks called for considerable expertise. JFP was required to, among a number of challenges; manage the rehabilitation of the degraded waterway that passed through the site, assist with the removal of the site from the State’s Environmental Management Register, deal with considerable stormwater flows while taking into account the impact of the 2011 Brisbane River Flood, supervise a significant Bulk Earthworks operation to replace the material removed previously due to the Brickworks, protect existing vegetation and ensure that the development remained as affordable as possible to meet market expectations. This was all part and parcel of the task of taking the site from a disused quarry to an attractive, park focused, residential community.
3.75ha Parkland Over 33,000 trees planted Extensive Playscape
Complex Engineering issues resolved
137 Res id 2 Maste ential lots & r Lot Unit Sites $40M
PA R K V U E E S TAT E - O X L E Y
project
value
The re s
F EATU R E PROJEC T
ults sp eak for them Projec ts Gen selves. Jon eral M a “ParkV anager than Levy, U ue ha nison explain s marke s t. The been extr em 50% o fi f allot rst release ely well re m c releas h e. By ents sellin as sold st eived by t ron g he contra r cted. egistration within the fi gly with ov er Fu a r works compl ture stages ll 40 allotm st months et of e progra c m to c ing. Unison ontinue to nts had be sell we en onstru Projec l t l c s p t r h t i o a h sched ule to e balance a s accelerat r to meet m ed llo arket d tments ah its ead of emand ”.
To sum that “ up the succ th es Survey e team of En s of the pr oj o g ParkVu rs at JFP h ineers, Land ect Mr Levy av sc e s Projec from its init e helped Un ape Archite tated t ct ia is From showcases l concept th on Projects s and its ex ro d flood p former ind emplary de ugh to deliv eliver ve ro er u transf ne clay pit s strial quarr lopment ou y. The tc or y it reside med into a h e, overgrown use, this o omes. ntial c n i ommu gh quality u with weeds, e time r nity fo h r both ban designe as been d reside nts to new and exi parkland s enjoy” ting O . xley
‘‘The Parkland at ParkVue will be the 23rd park in Oxley - making it one of Brisbane’s greenest suburbs’’
‘‘The plant species selected have been grown from local seeds and will be reintroducing plants that would have occurred here naturally’’.
‘‘The park will be bigger than eight football fields in size ‘‘
U R BA N 13 ‘‘The park was officially named Tom O’Neill Park in recognition of the years of dedicated service he provided to the local community’’
UNSUBSCRIBE DISCLAIMER: The information contained in the JFP Urbane Newsletter is general advice and information relevant to the development industry, based on the latest information available at the time of preparation. JFP does not warrant the accuracy of information or comments contained therein and will not be responsible for any loss occasioned through reliance on information contained in Urbane.
PRIVACY: JFP believes that privacy is an important individual right and is important to our own business and the businesses of our clients. Our privacy policy sets out the standards to which JFP is committed to ensuring the privacy of individuals. We are also bound to comply with the National Privacy Principles as set out in the Privacy Act 1988. The JFP privacy policy provides information about our information handling practices. For further details of the JFP privacy policy please see here.