UR BAN SUMMER 2015
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
WHAT NEXT FOR PLANNING IN QUEENSLAND... QLD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BILL? PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE? ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSETS?
UR BA N
SUMMER 2015
IN THIS ISSUE: From the Editor
2
2015 Planning & Development Bill
3
Priority Development Infrastructure
5
Environmental Offsets
5
Timely, Accurate Audits
6
What was planned and what now? Co-Investment Program Kicks off
Amendments to the QLD Framework Keeping Funding Flowing
New Commonwealth Koala Guidelines 6 JFP’s Design Acknowledged
7
Mackay Adopts Fair Value Charges
7
Update: Draft Planning Schemes
8
Mackay Planning Scheme
9
Brighter Future?
9
Closer to Launch
Costs Down with larger prospects looming
Colleges Crossing Reborn!
10
CONTRIBUTORS John Pappas, Graeme Bews, Shane Talty, Wade Harris, Ryan Cairney, Tim Ivers, Andrew Galt, Tenille Learmonth, Thierry Marrot, Leanne Schokman, Tony Barr, Tamara Drake.
CONTACT US BR ISBANE
JFP House - 76 Ernest Street, South Brisbane PO Box 3634 South Brisbane Qld 4101 P 07 3012 0100 F 07 3846 1959
Image Source: Tourism and Events Queensland 2015
FROM THE EDITOR:
For Queensland this season has ended up being the Summer of Surprise. The electorate’s dramatic reversal of support between the two major parties has left the State in a minority Government situation. The future of the ambitious planning reform agenda launched by the former Newman Government is now unclear. Some of the most important aspects of the reform program such as the Planning & Development Bill, the Priority Development Infrastructure Co-investment Program and Environmental Offsets have been reviewed in this edition of URBANe and the question pondered: what next? Only time will tell, but no doubt all in the Development Industry will be watching unfolding events with interest. Regardless of political uncertainty, whether at a State or Commonwealth level, the recent interest rate cut and records from 2014, as expressed in the article Brighter Future?, seem to suggest that 2015 will be a positive year for getting on with the job of supplying housing here in Queensland. To this end, ensuring that Financiers are comfortable with project construction risks is an important aspect of being able to get on with the job. The article Timely, Accurate Audits – Keeping Funding Flowing describes how JFP is assisting our Clients to communicate quickly and clearly with their project funders. It is with great pride that we showcase the work that the JFP Team has done to facilitate the rebirth of the College’s Crossing Recreation Reserve. Ravaged by the Brisbane River floods of 2011 and 2013, this gateway to Ipswich City has, as a result of JFP’s design, been re-established as a popular community landmark. In addition, JFP’s design abilities have been further cemented by two recent UDIA Awards of Excellence for the Gasworks Project undertaken on behalf of AVEO. This summer has reminded us that life is often full of surprises and there is no knowing where tomorrow will lead us, or who will lead us for that matter, but we look forward to assisting our Clients to make the most of whatever 2015 brings.
S UNSH I NE COA ST
237-239 Bradman Avenue, Maroochydore PO Box 6 Maroochydore Qld 4558 P 07 5450 3900 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
John Pappas
Editor
U R BA N
2
QLD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BILL What was planned and what now?
The key legislative framework relating to the Development Industry in Queensland was all set to change, with the Government in the final stages of formulating its replacement to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) prior to going into caretaker mode for the recent State election. The proposed changes were contained in the Draft Planning and Development Bill; which was released for public consultation during the second half of last year. The consultation process for the Bill included a number of briefings and presentations with Industry, Local Government and Community Groups, with a total of 221 submissions received. The consideration of these submissions resulted in a number of refinements to the Bill with the revised version tabled in Parliament on the 25th November. However, the Parliamentary Review Committee appointed to review the Bill ceased upon the calling of the State Election. With a new State Government set to govern what does that mean for the future of the Bill? Before speculating on that question we will have a look at what was proposed. Assessment of the latest version of the Bill indicates that, despite the public consultation process, the State made only minimal changes to the originally released legislation. We can confirm that no major changes were proposed to those previously announced in relation to the Development Assessment Process. As per our previous articles on the Bill, none of the proposed amendments were considered revolutionary, nor ground breaking. Whilst terminologies and definitions may change, the current Development Assessment Process was to remain relatively intact. Notwithstanding this, some improvements to processes and timeframes were proposed.
THE KEY FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ARE :
Image Source: Tourism and Events Queensland 2015
•
An Integrated Development Assessment process is to be a key pillar of the legislation. Referral Agency triggers will continue to apply.
•
Three categories of development are covered under the Draft Bill; • Prohibited Development, which is development for which a Development Application may not be made; • Assessable Development which is development for which a Development Approval is required; • Accepted Development which is development for which a Development Approval is not required.
•
There are 2 categories of Assessable Development. These are Standard and Merit Assessment with a Planning Scheme stating what type of assessment is required. A Standard Assessment is an assessment that must be carried out only against assessment benchmarks (relevant codes) and have regard to any matters prescribed by a Regulation. Merit Assessment must be carried out against the assessment benchmarks (relevant codes) and have regard to any matters prescribed by a Regulation, as well as having regard to any other relevant matter. Merit Assessment is the broader assessment type.
U R BA N
3
QLD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BILL Continued... •
Merit Assessment may or may not require Public Notification depending on the Local Government Planning Scheme. This was considered positive and would provide Councils greater flexibility to identify higher risk application types which warrant public notification. This has the potential to further reduce the opportunity for submitter appeals. Having said this, it remains to be seen whether Councils would use these provisions to reduce the number of applications requiring public notification, as envisaged by the State.
•
There will be more discretion for Councils to deem applications “properly made”. Council may accept an application even if the Owners Consent has not been provided. Owners Consent will however need to be provided prior to the determination of an application.
•
The currency periods for Material Change of Use Approvals will increase to 6 years, however the roll over provisions currently available under the SPA will be removed. The removal of the roll over provisions is seen as no significant loss as this has created confusion to Developers and Consultants alike since their introduction.
•
There will be potential for private certification of Low Risk (Standard only) Development Applications, with Councils able to nominate accredited persons as alternative Assessment Managers.
•
The requirement for Councils to notify Applicants and Land Owners prior to the lapsing of a Development Approval was previously proposed, however this has now been removed. The onus is on the Applicant to monitor timeframes.
•
The process for changing Development Approvals will also be simplified, with the removal of the sometimes hypothetical test on whether a change is likely to trigger a submission. Having said this, if a change to an Approval is other than a minor change, the whole of the development including the change, can be considered by the Assessment Manager. If the original Application was publicly notified, further public notification will be required in most circumstances.
•
The maximum penalties for offences under the Bill were reviewed and increased to ensure an appropriate deterrent.
•
Discretionary cost rules relating to P&E Appeals continue to apply, despite some opposition from community groups.
The proposed legislation represents an evolution of the current Sustainable Planning Act rather than a complete overhaul. From what we have seen thus far, the implementation of the Bill by Local Authorities in the determination of Assessment Types and Public Notification Triggers will largely dictate its potential impacts. The LNP proposed the Bill and the ALP is on record as saying that it “will not seek to replace, rename or politicize good planning reforms”* Time will tell what form the bill will take before it becomes an Act. Watch this Space... Shane Talty
Associate Director Planning and Urban Design Image Source: Tourism and Events Queensland 2015 *Property Council of Australia 2015
U R BA N
4
Image Source: Community Housing Federation of Australia 2015
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CO-INVESTMENT PROGRAM KICKS-OFF
AMENDMENTS TO THE QUEENSLAND ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSET FRAMEWORK:
A number of projects have been identified and agreed to prior to the election to kick-off the State’s Priority Development Infrastructure (PDI) Co-investment Program. The PDI aims to facilitate the supply of catalytic Infrastructure which unlock significant economic benefits to communities by providing funds on a Co-investment basis. Although the funds were to be provided interest free, the State was seeking a return on its investment over time from project partners; who may include Councils, Water Distributor-Retailers, State Agencies or, importantly, Urban Developers. The program has a strong urban development focus with the types of infrastructure that can be funded listed as including roadworks, water supply, wastewater and stormwater systems.
On the 19th December 2014 considerable changes were made to the Queensland Environmental Offsets Framework. Changes were made to coincide with amendments to the Environmental Offsets Act and the Environmental Offsets Regulation.
The major pre-requisite for qualifying for Co-investment is that the Local Authority within which the project is located must either intend to, or already have, infrastructure charges at or below the State Government’s Fair Value Charges Schedule. This is a potential boost for housing affordability as Fair Value Charges are in the order of 10%-15% lower than the current State Government Infrastructure Charges Cap. The Co-investment may be recovered via a range of mechanisms including; • payment at each Plan Sealing • via a Special Infrastructure Levy • Periodic Payments The program had shown some positive signs with some significant regional Council’s such as Mackay and Rockhampton agreeing to elements of this scheme. However it remains to be seen what the approach of the New Queensland Government will be to this innovative program. Watch this Space...
Changes to the Framework and associated policies are considered to be a step in the right direction and include the removal of the standard Administration Fee which was considered to be excessive for smaller developments, adding unwarranted costs to Environmental Offsets. The Administration Fee now includes a revised floor cost. For Local Governments, based on a 1ha area, the Administrative Fee is likely to be between $5,000 - $20,000 (subject to Local Government classification) rather than the previous minimum of $50,000.
FURTHER CHANGES INCLUDE:
• Removal of duplication between levels of Government. This applies where an Offset has been conditioned by State or Local Government and is further requested by the Commonwealth. If, for the same environmental matter, the Proponent can apply to have the lower level offset removed. • Where the State Government has had the opportunity to impose an Offset but did not, Local Government cannot impose an Offset for the same environmental matter. • Local Government can seek a Financial Offset that is less than what is determined by the Financial Offsets Calculator. This may be applicable when areas are mapped inaccurately and Council agrees the calculated Offset is in excess of the Biodiversity Value i.e. the clearing of 2 trees in a mapped area of 1ha. In addition, a number of guidelines, tools and calculators have been added to the Queensland Governments website, helping Developers to more accurately assess site Biodiversity Values, costs associated with Combined Offsets and size requirements for Land Based Offsets. However, it remains to be seen how the new Queensland Government will approach Environmental Offsets with talk of reverting back to the former VMA approach being one of the options available. Watch this Space...
U R BA N
5
AN
TIMELY, ACCURATE AUDITS Keeping funding flowing For the past 15 years JFP Urban Consultants has been providing construction risk advice and project auditing services to financial institutions, including some of Australia’s major banks, on land subdivisions. It is our experience that being a company consisting of Engineers, Town Planners, Surveyors and Landscape Architects enhances our ability to identify risks and to ensure that Financiers understand the construction costs associated with projects. We understand the full spectrum of potential project risks because we cover all facets of land development from Concept to Completion. Unlike built form projects, where in the ground costs represent a smaller proportion of the overall costs, land subdivisions are exposed to significant cost risks relating to ground conditions. Having Engineers who administer Civil Contracts within our ranks makes JFP very aware of the variability and impacts that ground conditions can have on the end cost. It is relatively straight forward to review invoices and provide a cost to date on projects. JFP prides itself on its ability to go one step further to provide an accurate Cost to Complete Analysis, based on a thorough understanding of the land subdivision construction process, to financial institutions so that they can make informed decisions on how best to manage their financial risk on a project.
Keeping the Bank comfortable with potential project risks in a timely, accurate manner ensures that the Developer can drawdown the appropriate funding allocation promptly to facilitate future works. Timeliness and accuracy are valued by Clients of JFP’s Bank Audit Service such as the Trask Development Corporation. Trask, which has a substantial number of residential projects focussed in Moreton Bay, have been using JFP’s service for the past 3 years. “We find JFP a pleasure to deal with and their services provided always conducted in a professional and timely manner. This greatly assists our projects allowing us to make payments to Council and our Contractors on time. We would not hesitate in recommending JFP on future projects.” Matthew Fox – Chief Financial Officer – Trask Development Corporation
Typically, a Financial Audit includes an initial PreCommencement Report (summarising the budget, approvals, insurances, etc.) and Monthly Drawdown Reports detailing works complete and an analysis of cost to complete. Each financier has their own requirements and as such we work with the financier to provide a standard reporting style which offers clarity in the Wade Harris reported information and is easy Project Manager to understand. Engineering
NEW COMMONWEALTH KOALA GUIDELINES Listing and the clearing exceeds 2ha then an Assessment must be undertaken to determine the likely impact of the proposed action on the species.
Image Source: GM Medical Blog 2015
In response to Koalas being listed as ‘vulnerable’ on 2 May 2012, the Commonwealth has developed EPBC Act Referral Guidelines which are aimed at helping proponents avoid actions that may cause significant impacts to Koala populations. In order to determine if referral is required to the Commonwealth, a Protected Matters Search should be undertaken to identify if Koalas Areas are listed within the applicable area. In cases where the search indicates a Koala
Where an impact is likely, a Site Assessment must be undertaken by qualified persons to assess if Koalas are present or if suitable habitat exists on the site. The Referral Guidelines are used to provide detailed descriptions of the required survey methods and techniques. Site Surveys focus on Koala presence, vegetation composition, habitat connectivity, existing threats and site recovery value. Where it is determined that Referral is required, then the Applicant may have to demonstrate avoidance and/or mitigation. If an action requires Commonwealth Approval then Offsets that compensate for the significant residual impacts of the action are considered at the Approval Stage. Under the terms of the EPBC Act, Offsets are not a relevant consideration at the Referral Stage. Ryan Cairney
Landscape Achitect, Arborist / Field Ecologist
U R BA N
6
“The Gasometer is the crowning jewel of the Gasworks development…”
JFP’S AWARD-WINNING DESIGN ACKNOWLEDGED The JFP designed Gasometer, the centrepiece of Aveo’s Gasworks Plaza at Newstead, has been acknowledged as the major design feature that helped Aveo to win two UDIA Awards for Excellence. The Gasworks Plaza Project scooped the pool at the 2014 UDIA Awards for Excellence by winning both the Urban Renewal and Retail, Commercial and Public Use award categories. JFP congratulates Aveo for their well deserved wins and acknowledges the contribution of project partners Cox Raynor Architects and ML Designs. As Landscape Architects for the Gasworks Plaza JFP was responsible for the detailed design of the iconic Gasometer and the plaza and mall spaces across the project. As acknowledged in a statement by Aveo Group Executive General Manager Gary Kordic “The Gasometer is the crowning jewel of the Gasworks development…”
IVADALE LAKES: JFP also congratulates Australand on its Ivadale Lakes project being named a finalist in the Residential Subdivision category. JFP has been providing Town Planning, Urban Design and Surveying services on the Ivadale project for many years.
MACK AY ADOPTS FAIR VALUE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES: With a view to encourage further development within the region, Mackay has decided to adopt the State’s Fair Value Charges Schedule as the basis for calculating Infrastructure Charges for Urban Developments in the future. Fair Value Charges are 10% less than the current State Government Charges Cap (i.e. $25,200 vs $28,000 for a new 3 bedroom or larger house/unit). Mackay is one of the first Councils to adopt the Fair Value Charges Scheme.
U R BA N
7
UPDATE: DRAFT PLANNING SCHEMES
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
Planning Scheme
Draft Logan Planning Scheme
Draft City Plan 2015
Website
http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/planning‐and‐ building/planning/logan‐planning‐scheme
http://yoursayredland.engagementhq.com/city‐plan‐ 2015
Stage
Second State Review Delayed due to State Election
First State Review Commenced late 2014
Next Target
Receive response from State & amendments as required Formal public consultation due to start early in 2015 Dependent on State Elections & outcome. Possible commencement mid 2015.
When to start considering applications under draft plan:
If lodgment date after 31 January 2015
If lodgment date after mid‐late 2015
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Planning Scheme
Draft City Plan 2015
Draft 2014 MBRC Planning Scheme
Website
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/planning‐and‐ building/city‐plan‐2015‐19859.html
https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/general.aspx?id=13 8125
Stage
Public submissions being reviewed
Being amended subject to State feedback.
Next Target
Anticipated commencement May 2015
Additional community consultation following amendments as directed by State. Dependent on State Elections & outcome Possible commencement mid 2015.
When to start considering applications under draft plan:
If lodgment date after April 2015
If lodgment date after mid‐late 2015
GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL
MACKAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Planning Scheme
Draft Gladstone Regional Council planning scheme
Draft Mackay Region planning scheme 2014
Website
http://www.gladstone.qld.gov.au/draft‐planning‐scheme http://www.mackay.qld.gov.au/business/planning_and_ development/strategic_planning/local_and_regional_pla nning/mackay_region_planning_scheme
Stage
Public submissions being reviewed
Second State Review Delayed due to State election.
Next Target
Anticipated commencement June 2015
Receive response from State. Dependent on State election outcome. Possible commencement mid 2015
When to start considering applications under draft plan:
If lodgement date after December 2014
If lodgement date after December 2014
Image Source: Tourism and Events Queensland 2014
U R BA N
8
MACKAY PLANNING SCHEME Closer to launch
The draft Mackay Planning Scheme underwent further public comment in late 2014 following draft planning scheme amendments resulting from the completion of Council’s Regional Sustainability Strategy. The amended scheme is being reviewed by the State Government. The draft planning scheme continues to focus on strategic planning objectives including increased densities, increased housing choice and creation of compact settlement forms. It encourages infill development in existing urban areas of Mackay, Sarina, Walkerston, Marian and Mirani. In terms of future opportunities, the draft scheme: • Envisages moderate residential expansion to the north of Sarina (southern part of Mackay region) and industry expansion to the northwest. • Identifies certain precincts with the Emerging Community Zone and nominates preferred development types / uses for these areas (eg low, medium density residential, local centre). Some Emerging Community precincts prescribe maximum building heights. For example, Ooralea precinct no.5 includes maximum building heights of 3 storeys to 5 storeys for different uses. • Identifies “Future Investigation” areas in Ooralea, Richmond, Rosella and Sarina East, but these are not intended for development before 2026. • Identifies opportunities for transit-oriented design for major centres within the Mackay urban area including Mt Pleasant and Rural View. Whilst Mackay has struggled in recent times with the softening of the resources sector, the draft planning scheme does appear to provide regional development opportunities into the future, for a range of urban uses. Graeme Bews Associate Director Planning and Urban Design
IMAGE
BRIGHTER FUTURE? Costs down with larger prospects looming U R BAN
S NAP S HOTS
~ $102,448 Average Cost per Lot 2014: ~ $106,239 Average Cost per Lot 2013: ~ -3.7% Increase in Average Cost per Lot 2014 vs. 2013: ~ 29% Increase in the number of Investigations 2014 vs 2013: ~ 73 Average number of Lots per site investigated 2014: ~ 64 Average number of Lots per site investigated 2013
Information from JFP’s Investigations Database for 2014 reflects the confident mood expressed by many Urban Developers in Queensland predicting a robust period ahead. Both the number and size of individual investigations over potential urban development parcels increased significantly over 2014. Greenfield Development is back in vogue and the pressure on the Urban Development System, particularly on Local Authorities, is once again starting to become a significant issue. Interestingly, the average price to develop residential lots reduced slightly overall in 2014 when compared to the previous year. Part of this reduction may be attributable to the larger average number of lots contained within proposals being considered during 2014. The figures for 2014 seem to suggest a strong 2015 is on the cards. Pending the uncertainty on the political scene, it seems that Queensland is ready to move forward in terms of Urban Development. Yes, we do live in interesting times, who knows what the future will bring, but you can rest assured we will keep you up to date with how the market is travelling by reporting on similar statistics in future editions of URBANe. These average costs are derived from development cost estimates completed by JFP on actual urban development proposals during 2014. 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.
Image Source: LJ Hooker Mackay 2015
U R BA N
9
AN
Recovering from natural disasters is a challenge which, sadly, communities face at times. Over recent years flooding has caused immense damage to the built environment, including the open space network. Due to the severity of the 2011 and 2013 Brisbane River floods the popular Colleges Crossing Recreation Reserve, a well loved gateway to Ipswich City, was submerged under 19 metres of water leaving it in an unusable state. Footpaths had been undermined, facilities damaged and play equipment mangled; rendering them dangerous and unsafe. Following great success with the rebuilding of the awardwinning Joseph Brady and Riverside Parks; JFP Urban Consultants, along with Dig It Landscapes, were asked by Ipswich City Council to revitalise Colleges Crossing.
U R BA N
10
To begin with, JFP’s Surveyors undertook a detailed study of the existing site to establish the extent of damage and the level of reconstruction that was required. Using up to date site information was key to JFP’s Landscape Architecture and Engineering Teams’ ability to overcome the many challenges presented by the ravaged site. These included incorporating the existing damaged infrastructure as well as the development of resilience to major floods. JFP was able to overcome these challenges through detailed site and flood studies, as well as open communication with Ipswich City Council. Alongside the Landscape Architecture Team, JFP Engineers co-ordinated, designed and supervised the re-profiling of the major drainage channels throughout the park. This resulted in improved functionality for the drainage network, as well as increasing resilience to storm events.
To further enhance resilience, JFP undertook the detailed design of large protective structures, while also integrating them into the park to become a significant landmark. As Colleges Crossing has a rich historical association to many local people, JFP integrated some of this history through use of artwork supplied by the Jager, Ugarapul and Yuggera people. These wonderful examples of artwork can be found inlaid in the landmark artwork structures. October 2014 saw the park and all of its facilities reopened by Mayor Paul Pisasale, in perfect time for the beginning of summer and the park’s busiest time. So next time the temperature rises and you are in need of a little cooling off make sure to take your family out to experience the new look Colleges Crossing Recreation Reserve.
U R BA N
11
www.jfp.com.au
UNSUBSCRIBE DISCLAIMER: The informaƟon contained in the JFP URBANe NewsleƩer is general advice and informaƟon relevant to the development industry, based on the latest informaƟon available at the Ɵme of preparaƟon. JFP does not warrant the accuracy of informaƟon or comments contained therein and will not be responsible for any loss occasioned through reliance on informaƟon 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 commiƩed to ensuring the privacy of individuals. We are also bound to comply with the NaƟonal Privacy Principles as set out in the Privacy Act 1988. The JFP privacy policy provides informaƟon about our informaƟon handling pracƟces. For further details of the JFP privacy policy please see here.