New Urbanism has been defined as “a movement that promotes neo-traditional neighbourhood-based urban design” (Kelbaugh, D, p.1), with an emphasis on a pedestrian based town centre and on sustainability. It was initially a reaction to sprawl and is now a basis for addressing physical health and social well-being and for sustainable urban growth and smart growth (Morris, 2006).

The basic element is of a walkable neighbourhood which, besides a variety of housing choices, can consist of a corner store, child care centre, post box, bus stop and several small businesses which provide a walkable focus for the local community (Morris, 2006). Generally, the neighbourhood has a 400 metres walkable radius (Morris, 2006) and its design provides for chance meetings and privacy (Carter, 2004).

Supporters of New Urbanism have found many merits in the concept, namely:

• Its ability to accommodate people in life-cycle housing, allowing them to go from raising children to retirement years without having to move from the community in which they have established roots and friends (Carter, 2004);
• A concern for the environment is integrated into community design in various ways such as through regional and local connections to transit (Carter, 2004);
• An emphasis on public space, which results in an ease of pedestrian access and the provision of a well-defined and high quality public realm (Hulme, 2005);
• A variety of housing designs as exemplified in the city of Bahcesehir in Turkey where there were a variety of houses, small mid-rise flats, and villas, with a nod to its history through the employment of traditional Turkish and Ottoman styles (Miller, 2000);
• New Urbanist developments often can overcome opposition (such as Not In My Backyard [NIMBYism], environmental restrictions, and attitudes and laws opposing growth) through strong master plans and design codes exhibiting sensitivity to the community, the environment, and the historic context (Carter, 2004); and
• Compact and dense development also can preserve land, and buildings, parks, trails, and conservation areas can be sited to preserve prime environmental assets such as wetlands, woodlands, and animal habitats (Carter, 2004).

However, there are detractors of the concept who question the fervour with which it has been embraced. Some of the criticisms levelled against the concept include:

• Its solutions are sometimes considered too formulaic and physically deterministic, relying too much on design to generate desired forms of community and patterns of behaviour (Marshall, 2003);
• An ongoing challenge is the viability of vertical mixed use, with apartments or officers ground-floor retail (Carter, 2004);
• It is not clear that a preference for neighbourhood and community will easily displace America’s (and Australia’s) love affair with the car even if such a displacement is economically feasible (Harvey, 1997);
• In the absence of employment and government largesse, the ‘civic’ claims of the new urbanism come across as weak (Harvey, 1997);
• New Urbanism and Smart Growth opposes ‘sprawl’ which is a North American term and misused in Australia, which has development control systems, regional and local infrastructure planning mechanisms and public transport networks that American New Urbanism would dream of (Gleeson, B, 2006); and
• Community has always meant different things to different people, and doubts are raised over a uniform definition of community defined by New Urbanism (Harvey, 1997).

Having personally visited Claisebrook Village in East Perth as part of the Young Planners Conference in April this year, I was impressed by its close (walkable) proximity to shops, beautifully designed apartments and units, open green spaces and a lake, which made it a scenic neighbourhood. However, its compact housing design and the high cost of each unit (which I was told was at least $1 million each), putting the choice of such an ideal neighbourhood out of the reach of the average family, made me baulk at the idea of being a part of it . The design of each dwelling looked very much like each other with very limited ability of each home owner to put his own design stamp on his house.

Some pics of Claisebrook Village taken when I was at the conference:

Therefore, do you think New Urbanism currently has a place in urban design and is it the way you would plan your urban areas?

Does it adequately address urban problems such as traffic congestion, lack of a backyard or open spaces, and high density urban areas?

If not, what aspects of New Urbanism would you ditch and what aspects will you incorporate, as a planner?

Do you agree with the merits and flaws cited above? What other weaknesses or merits do you find in New Urbanism?

Are there other planning and design concepts, besides New Urbanism, that adequately address the increasing urban density of our towns and cities?

References

1) Carter, D., “New Urbanist Tenets” in Urban Land, Vol. 63, no. 5, May 2004, p. 62-64.2) Gleeson, B., “Towards a new Australian suburbanism” in Australian planner, Vol. 43, no. 1, 2006, p. 8-16.

Debate still rages over whether this model will increase or reduce control of development, protect habitat, & deliver better infrastructure outcomes under the pressures Queensland is currently experiencing as a ‘boom state’. An alternative view argues that planning at this higher level – in particular statutory planning, can be dictatorial, inflexible, & out of touch with local communities.

A range of academic perspectives address the issue of ‘economies of scale’ in planning, albeit peripherally. Given the current climate, it is worth exploring in its own right.

Historically, it is clear that the level of governance at which planning occurs has a major impact on planning outcomes. Mannheim (1968) argued that in the “Great Society” we are today (p.4), appropriate ‘economies of scale’ are needed in planning, while Geddes (1968 [1915]) demonstrates the value of considering the spatial dimensions of an issue. Cursory attempts at planning & regulation during Australia’s settlement, for instance, occurred at the most remote governance level – ie. from England – & were largely ignored (Marsden (2000)).

Much of the critique on governance levels in planning historically was based in the prevailing political frameworks of the time: for instance, Marxist planners argued for state control to prevent the vagaries of the market ruling urban development (Engels (1845)), while ‘liberal’ planners argued for a mixed economy, where rules made either for or by the market would guide development of their own accord.

Considerable work on appropriate ‘landscape scale’ has been undertaken in the field of environmental science which could be applied in a planning context: it is now understood in natural resources management that in order to be effective, issues need to be addressed at their appropriate landscape scale (Paton et al (2004), p.259).

Gleeson (2003) notes the influence of reform currents in governance, in particular “an emphasis on policy integration across traditional portfolio boundaries to produce new legislative & strategic frameworks for planning” as well as new spatial governance frameworks (pp.767-8).

In contrast to the environment field, where participation at all levels is necessary (Agrawal & Gibson (2001), p.634), the statutory planning process needs to be discrete & quarantined from political influence. However, the governance level at which it is located is critical to positive outcomes. One could question whether state government has more power than local government to assert development control, as is currently being argued by the Queensland Government, or whether local-level statutory planning has an accountability to local communities that state intervention lacks (LGAQ Submission (2007)).

I argue that a range of governance levels in planning are required both to address issues at differing landscape scales & to ensure accountability in processes & outcomes, & that the development of such structures in the environment field lead the way in this regard

Buxton et al (2006) note the rationale for council amalgamation in the Kennett era in Victoria was “…to make local government subservient to state development priorities” (p.18). Where such development priorities override the amenity of local communities, the lack of strong local representation in the planning process can present a problem.

Strategic planning is often seen to be appropriate at a higher level of governance than statutory planning – notwithstanding the principle that these streams should be integrated in an effective planning process (Whitzman (2004), p.242). Recent changes flagged by the Queensland Government include the proviso that all regional plans will be statutory State planning instruments (Planning for a Prosperous Queensland (2007), p.19).

While the Constitution leaves land use & ownership to the states under ‘implied powers’ (Aikten & Orr (2002:75), there is nonetheless a national landscape scale at which planning can be most effective. ‘Macro’ issues such as climate change & the water crisis come to mind: the recent role of the federal government through the Murray Darling Basin Commission is an example of this – it is also an example of the lack of thought about structures for power sharing required for such negotiation. National & state infrastructure projects are another clear area of larger landscape scales.

Planning on a regional scale, with the involvement of all 3 tiers of government, provides an opportunity – not least because no one tier ‘owns’ a regional area, & the cooperation of all are required to obtain positive outcomes. However, for initiatives to have statutory force, an existing statutory body is required for development assessment & response. A response based on relevant landscape scale would require the setting of clear criteria in order to avoid a jurisdictional nightmare.

The concept of subsidiary lends itself to resolving this dilemma. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘subsidiarity’ as the idea that any central authority should have a subsidiary function only, performing tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. According to this model, policy development & implementation is undertaken as close as possible to local communities, but cannot compromise agreed objectives at the local, state & national levels (Spiller (2004)).

While this approach is already practiced in Australia to some degree through the system of tied grants from the federal government to the states, it could be extended readily to the state-local arena. It would certainly lend greater weight to strategic planning, & would shift the power base down towards the grassroots level, rather than enshrining it at the apex of the pyramid as the Queensland process seeks to do.

The SEQ Regional Plan 2006 – 2026 attempts to provide a statutory regional planning framework for local government, dividing SEQ into five regional land use categories with Regulatory Provisions to control each area. State and local governments are both required to meet the requirements of the Plan when reviewing development applications, in amending their planning schemes or developing related policies or codes.

Local Governments are required to have Growth Management Plans, as well as an Integrated Planning Scheme. However, few local Councils have developed these to date, & the integrated of development assessment process within the Integrated Planning Act 1997 has proven burdensome to local government, slowing both assessment & development response processes to a crawl in many local Councils.

The recent move to local governments amalgamation on the basis of regional ‘communities of interest’ is a further attempt in that direction. The argument is that regional alliances through the Regional Organisations of Councils or ‘ROCs’ have failed to deliver real outcomes (REF).

The Queensland Government has now developed new statutory provisions to further control development at a state level through streamlining the development assessment process, coordinating infrastructure planning, a template for Council planning schemes, a shift to mediation for dispute resolution, & the establishment of the Urban Land Development Authority with extensive planning & development approval powers.

Questions

Is bigger necessarily better in planning? Is accountability reduced the more remote decisions become from those they affect? Does the ‘machine’ of planning processes become too inflexible in a larger political structure?

Should strategic planning be integrated with statutory planning at every level of governance?

Is the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ applicable to the planning process?

Is the forced amalgamation of local government in Queensland warranted for the greater good?

References

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (2001) Enchantment and Disenchantment: TheRole of Community in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development,27(4): 629-649.

Aitken,G. & Orr, R. (2002), “The Australian Consitution”, in The Australian Government Solicitor, Chapter 5.

Buxton, M., Tieman, G., Bekessy, S., Budge, T., Mercer, D., Coote, M. and Morcombe, J., 2006. Change and Continuity in Peri-Urban Australia: State of the Peri-Urban Regions: A Review of the Literature, Monograph 1, Chapter 8: Governance for land use in peri-urban Australia, pp. 232-249.

Engels, F. (1969 [1845]) in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Panther Edition, Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Moscow [online] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/co ndition-working-class/ch04.htm [accessed 24 February 2007].

Ewing, S. (2003) Catchment Management Arrangements. In Dovers, S. & Wild River, S. (Eds.) Managing Australia’s Resources. Melbourne, The Federation Press, pp. 393-412.

Geddes, Patrick (1968 [1915]) “City Survey for Town Planning Purposes, of Municipalities and Governments” ch. 16 in Cities in Evolution: an Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics, intro. P. Johnson-Marshall, Howard Fertig: New York.

Gleeson, Brendan (2003) “The Difference that Planning Makes” Environment and Planning A , vol. 35, pp. 761-70.

Local Government Association of Queensland (2007) Submission to the Local Government Reform Commission, LGAQ in http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/wwwdocs/yourcouncil/docs/LGAQ_Submission.pdf

Local Government Association of Queensland (2007) Supplementary Submission to the Local Government Reform Commission, LGAQ

Mannheim, Karl (1968 [1950]) “Main Symptoms of the Crisis” ch. 1 in Freedom,Power & Democratic Planning, Hans Gerth and Ernest Bramstedt eds, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London, pp. 3-21.

Marsden, S. (2000) “The Introduction of Order”, ch. 2 in Troy, P (ed) A History of European Housing in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 26-40. Mumford, Lewis (1961) “Commercial Expansion and Urban Dissolution”, ch. 14 in The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects, London, Seeker & Warburg, pp. 468-507.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G. and Woods, M., 2004, Regional Natural

Resource Management: Is it Sustainable?, Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 11(4): 259-267.

Queensland Government (2005) SEQ Regional Plan 2006 – 2026 in http://www.oum.qld.gov.au/?id=29

Queensland Government (2007) Planning for a Prosperous Queensland in http://www.ipa.qld.gov.au/ipaReview/reform_agenda_report.asp

Spiller, M. (2004) “Planning for Community – A Governance Perspective” in Changing the Way Government Works, Institute of Public Administration Australia

Whitzman, Caroline (2004) “The Crisis in Planning (Don’t Yawn! Don’t Turn the Page!” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 22, no. 4, December, pp. 341-43.

Renewable energy developments from a planning perspective are generally split into two categories, domestic and large scale / commercial. To provide a quick background most domestic renewable energy installations, particularly in urban areas are of the solar variety, and as such most local planning regulations are specifically related to the installation of solar. While council policy varies, in general these installations are considered as part of building and works. As stated in the City of Melbourne’s Guidelines for solar technology installations in residential areas (2001) “the installation of rooftop solar technology does not constitute construction of a building, as defined in the Planning and Environment Act 1987, it does constitute an external alteration to a building”. Therefore contacting the local planning authority is necessary to determine if a planning application is needed. Building permits and heritage permits may also be required depending on overlays and so on. As far as other domestic renewable energy solutions, such as wind, specific planning guidelines at a local level are almost non-existent as these installations have not yet reached critical mass. Therefore most council’s are treating them on a case by case basis (Webb, 2007). This can cause confusion and lots of red tape and raises the question – should local councils take a more proactive approach in determining guidelines for various domestic renewable energy installations?

Large scale or commercial applications of renewable energy technologies, however, are a whole different ball game and one that is prone to intense public debate and politicisation.

While federal government processes are the primary driver for the viability of the industry, via policy development and provision (or lack of) of market based incentives. In most instances renewable developments falls under state planning processes.

In a Victorian context, most commercial renewable energy installation trigger state planning frameworks as they tend to have expected generation capacity of 30 MW or greater , which under the planning framework, automatically installs the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority (SEAV, 2003). The Victorian government has been a proactive driver for a cohesive state planning framework for renewable energy installations, particularly for wind, through specific state planning policy , planning guidelines and the general provision of a consistent, streamlined assessment process(SEAV, 2003).Yet despite these provisions, intense community opposition surrounding the location of large commercial wind farms can create real barriers to the planning process, and can unfortunately result in its politicisation. This is evidenced in the now infamous Bald Hills Wind Farm decision of 2006. A situation which threatened the viability of renewable energy developments at the core.

To provide a background, federal involvement in the development process is triggered, where a proposal has the potential to affect a “matter of national significance” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In which case the project in question will be deemed a ‘controlled action” and an Environment Effects Statement or similar must be undertaken, and federal approval gained (Auswind, 2006). In the case of Bald Hills, which triggered EPBC Act approval, this process was used as a means of vetoing the project to push specific political agendas.

To elaborate, Federal Minister of Environment Ian Campbell, overturned state planning approval for the project on the basis that the wind farm had the potential to further endanger the Orange-bellied parrot. This is despite an independent panel inquiry into the impacts of the project, which determined that the project did not pose an unacceptable threat to the species, as a.) there has only been historical sightings of the bird near the site and it was not on its migratory route (Minchin et al, 2006, Hogan 2006), unlike many other wind farms which were on the parrots migratory route and had already gained federal approval under the very same government, and b.) environmental management & mitigation measures had been put in place to protect the species. Herein lies the controversy, as Bald Hills Wind Farm was located in the marginal seat of McMillan and had turned into the hot election topic for the region, with Minister Campbell at one stage writing to residents during local election campaigning to assure them that a wind farm would not go ahead if a liberal government was elected to the seat. The EPBC Act was used as a means to veto the project to meet the political promise made to the electorate of McMillan by Minister Campbell. Thankfully, Minister Campbell’s decision was reversed following a court challenge by the Victorian Government, but not without the planning process being so blatantly undermined along the way.

So where does this leave the renewable energy industry. What are the main barriers?

Firstly, at the very high level, the current government has withdrawn its support for renewable energy development in favour of nuclear and clean coal agendas. As such the market based incentives and policies required to make the industry viable are not there. However, fortunately, states, such as Victoria and New South Wales are creating their own market based incentives to support the industry and with that have provided a supportive, cohesive planning framework to assess these developments.

Yet, this is still not enough to get such developments across the line, as renewable energy developments are extraordinarily prone to NIMBYism. Despite the general community being all for climate change prevention, greenhouse gas emission reduction and renewable energy in theory, as soon as one is located near certain communities, outrage reaches extraordinary highs. This is despite best efforts of the wind industry to develop best practice guidelines, landscape values projects, national codes and conduct intensive community consultation to reach positive community outcomes. What instead has resulted from this intense community opposition is renewable energy developments becoming a political pawn, with planning frameworks being the chess board.

While many questions can be drawn specific to the renewable energy development debate (Are the planning frameworks in place sufficient? Do they provide enough direction in “appropriate” development to achieve acceptable community outcomes? Etc), I believe the biggest question of all which is highlighted through this renewable energy example is – Are political agendas undermining the planning process?

References

Auswind (2006) Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia online.

City of Melbourne (2001) Guidelines for solar technology installations in the City of Melbourne’s residential areas online

Hogan J (2006) Fury over wind farm decision, The Age, 5 April online

Minchin L, Khadem N and Ker P (2006) Feathers fly over wind farm ban, The Age, 6 April online

Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria (SEAV) (2003) Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria online

Webb A (2007) The viability of Domestic Wind Turbines for Urban Melbourne, Alternative Technology Association online

Websites of Interest

http://www.auswind.org/

http://www.ata.org.au

http://www.sv.sustainability.vic.gov.au/renewable_energy/index.asp

http://www.growingvictoria.vic.gov.au/

http://www.greenhouse.vic.gov.au/

Lots are orientated to open space with access from the rear and the neighbourhoods provide for a variety of density of development to create diversity and lifestyle choices in close proximity to recreation and commercial facilities. Liveable neighbourhoods aim for high quality landscaping and urban environment sometimes including public art.

“New urbanism is associated with community planning based on compactness, walkability, liveability, mixed uses and high design and development standards”, (Freestone, 2007).

The ‘city beautiful’ model’s impact can be seen today in the formal design of residential estates, parks and open space. New estates such as Arlington Rise, Settlers Run, Somerly, Harbour Rise and Fernbrooke all subscribe to the liveable neighbourhoods philosphy.

“Conventional car-based suburban extensions have become a thing of the past under Western Australia’s new Liveable Neighbourhoods code”, (Morris, 2006).

The national leader in new urbanism development is Perth. Successful projects featuring mixed use, walkable urban development were toured during a conference on New Urbanism in 2006. Given that the Planning Report Card 2006 results showed that Western Australia has the highest rate of community participation, this may be just one reason why new urbanism has succeeded in Perth.

In comparing Sydney and Melbourne, Sydney has been described as treating its pedestrians as second-class citizens, while Melbourne has been applauded for inviting people back into the city. Danish architect and urban planner, Dr Jan Gehl, believes that Sydney’s pedestrians are in a class below cars, often spending up to half their journey waiting for traffic lights.

While, Steve Vizard gives the following description of Canberra, “Canberra, Sunday … and our nation’s capital is deserted. Quarter of a million people are suppose to live here. This is supposed to be Australia’s largest inland city. But … I don’t see more than twelve residents at a time. I’m not convinced that there are more than a dozen people running this joint on a fabricated Emerald City-type arrangement. The city is an empty Brobdingnagian cemetery full of outsized marble icons festooned with giant kangaroos and implacable emus.

“An every-Australian suburb, neat, subdued, everthing in its place: Duntroon, the war memorial, Lake Burley Griffen, monuments, sweating marble and heat. Embassies impersonating fast-food outlets. A contrived Balinese temple, a giant-footed pagoda. Not a person in sight. Not a hair out of place. Embassyland. A little too clean, rubbishless, carless, smogless, messless, humourless, peopleless. A suburb in waiting.”

Sustainability, liveability and urban design have become the challenges facing planning. Balancing and integrating social, economic and environmental factors is fundamental to the idea of sustainable development. Although as Freestone (2007) argues that imagination has to be always reigned in by practical considerations. Striking the right balance can prove a long and bruising story.

Transit-oriented development aims to provide compact, walkable communities, however, developers and agencies associated with TOD’s should be careful that they do not end up with a struggling community beside a bypass road, that in the end sucks the life out of the area, bankrupts the businesses and changes the very fabric of the community.

Obesity in children, not just adults, is becoming more and more common and at an alarming rate. Professionals such as Dr Carol Whitzman are arguing that the lack of walkable neighbourhoods is contributing to a lack of exercise in children and adults.

“The roots of the planning profession are in public health”, (Whitzman, 2006), however public health issues have now moved on from being about clean water and good sanitation. Public health is now about obesity, heart disease, diabetes and lack of exercise.

The Victorian division of PIA’s Planning for Health and Well-Being Project is encouraging planners to “influence local urban design so that health is ‘planned in’ rather than ‘planned out’”.

The growing advocacy for better bike and foot paths, walkable communities that have facilities within walkable distances and times from each other are essential components for new urbanism developments.

As Charles Landry states, the aim of cities today must be to ‘think of your city as if it were a living work of art where citizens can involve and engage themselves in the creation of a transformed space. This will involve different creativities: the creativity of the engineer, the social worker, the planner, the business person, the events organiser, the architect, the housing specialists, IT specialists, psychologists, historians, anthropologists, natural scientists, environmentalists, artists of all kinds and, most importantly, ordinary people living their lives as citizens. This is comprehensive creativity.”

Community engagement techniques such as those espoused by Dr Ned Crosby are a fantastic method to ensure participation in development projects. Dr Crosby invented the citizen jury process which is known in such guises as Wisdom Councils, Dynamic Facilitation, Deliberative Surveys, World Cafe and 21st Century Town Meetings.

In 2005, four Australian cities ranked in the top ten list of international cities ranking on urban quality of life. The EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) ranks 127 cities worldwide.

My question is this, how do we take all of the information, historical, geographical, social, etc. and make it all work to everyone’s advantage? Canberra was supposed to be a model liveable city, but it comes across as cold and lifeless. How do we create walkable neighbourhoods with great ‘walkscores’ and reduced traffic without encouraging people to bypass the commercial areas altogether?

How, as planners, do we create places that people want to live in, work in, play in, walk in, communicate in, belong to and encourage growth in?

The answer has to be in community engagement and participation. Dr Crosby’s community engagement techniques appear to foster community empowerment and ownership. Our universities must teach planning students different participatory skills and tools for community engagement. Local, state and federal government must employ these techniques to ensure that the community is involved and engaged in major development projects.

References and Further Reading

Anonymous (2005) Creating Communities Newsletter Winter 2005 “WA ‘first’ for community engagement”, Department for Planning and Infrastructure.

Anonymous (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 74 “Poor urban design can contribute to obesity”.

Anonymous (2007) “Sydney pedestrians 2nd-class citizens” online

Bajracharya, Bhishna (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 74 “Promoting transit-oriented development”.

Eads, Brian (2005) Australian Readers Digest “Taking Back Our Cities”.

Freestone, Robert (2007) Designing Australia’s cities: culture, commerce and the city beautiful 1900 - 1930, University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Everbest, China.

Hague, Cliff (2007) Australian Planner Volume 44 No. 1 3/2007, “Re-inventing Planning: challenges and skills”. Planning Institute of Australia.

Hall, Professor Sir Peter (2007) Australian Planner Volume 44 No. 1 3/2007, “Priorities for Australian cities”. Planning Institute of Australia.

www.idealcity.org.au

www.ideasthatmatter.com - related to Jane Jacobs

Landry, C (2006) The Art of City Making.London, Earthscan.

Latest community initiatives - www.dpi.wa.gov.au/dialogue

Liveable Neighbourhoods (2000), Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, State of Western Australia.

www.livingneighbourhoods.org

Morris, Wendy (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 76 “Perth Showcases New Urbanism”.

www.pedestrianfriendly.com

Planning Report Card (2006) Planning Institute of Australia (PIA)

www.planningwiki.org

Reinventing planning - www.globalplanningnetwork.org

www.walkableneighborhoods.com

www.walkscore.com

Whitzman, Dr Carolyn (2006) Australian Planner “Investing in the energy source of the future: Free range children”, Planning Institute of Australia.

Vizard, Steve (1998), “Two Weeks in Lilliput - Bear-baiting and backbiting at the Constitutional Convention”, Penguin Books Australia.

Cue the climate change markets providing offsets for vehicle emissions, aeroplane travel, electricity and general consumption. There are a range of methods being trialled for offsetting carbon emissions, but probably the most popular is to offset emissions is to plant trees. People like the idea of planting trees, because not only do they offset their carbon emissions, but they also help put back some of the natural environment at the same time – a worthy cause. Greenfleet, one of the companies on the market has planted “more than three million trees since 1997” (Greenfleet: 2007).

The Australian Government also likes the idea of planting trees, announcing tax breaks for forests planted for carbon sequestration this week. According to the Australian Government, carbon sink forests are a “key element in addressing climate change.” (Turnbull, 12 September 2007)

But not everyone agrees that planting for climate change is the answer. Trees can let emitters “off the hook” an offset that allows people to continue on emitting carbon, safe in the knowledge that someone, somewhere is planting a tree to do something about it. Planting trees are good for people’s consciences, but not necessarily good at encouraging practices that reduce the level of emissions in the first place. As expressed by Jeff Angel, Director of the Total Environment Centre: “we would prefer that companies reduce their impact by switching to renewable power and implementing resource efficiency programs (reducing energy, water, and other materials),” he said. “This would demonstrate a change in organisational behaviour and a real commitment, rather than tinkering around the edges with dubious offsets and continuing to emit carbon dioxide.”

Trees are also risky, subject to fire, pestilence and drought, not to mention changes in policy that could lead to them being harvested sometime in the future.

But, the key question for the planning sector is where will all the trees go? And, what is that going to do to the landscape?<

Obviously, the lions’ share of the plantings will be in rural areas. This creates a number of issues, including the potential for further population decline in rural areas, as farming properties may be purchased for trees, as well as long-term on-going management issues for planted areas, which may not have been factored in to the arrangement between purchaser and provider.

Climate change presents further challenges for planners. It can be expected that over the next ten to thirty years, many of the areas where trees for carbon sequestration will be planted will be in increasingly hotter and drier areas, subject to more intense and frequent bushfires. Are the resulting risks to the safety of rural communities acceptable?

How should we plan to protect those that live in our rural landscapes and rural townships from the risks of tree planting for carbon sequestration?

And, what can be done (if anything should be done) to protect the vibrancy and diversity of rural communities against further population decline?

References

Australian Greenhouse Office. “Climate Change and Risk Variability” online Accessed: 9/9/07

Downie, Christian. “Carbon Offsets: Saviour or Cop Out?” Research Paper No. 48, The Australia Institute, August 2007. online Accessed: 1/9/07.

Global Market Institute Inc. “Top 50 Australian Climate Change Findings” in 2007 World Environment Review. May 2007.

Greenfleet Projects online Accessed 16/9/07

Total Environment Centre “Offset or Off Put? The Total Carbon Market Report” online Accessed 16/9/07

Turnbull, the Hon Malcolm MP. “Tax Break for Forests Boosts Greenhouse Savings” Media Release 12 September 2007.

Reasonable expectations?

The comment by Frank Knight, an economist, alleged to be one of the founders of the ‘Chicago School’, encapsulates the dilemma of planning - outcomes.

Whenever I go to Melbourne, I try to find an excuse to drive over the West Gate Bridge, at night if I can, to see the magic of the city and to enjoy being high up in the air. I do it for another reason. I remember driving to work on the 15th of October to the Newport office of the Commonwealth Employment Service, watching the bridge go up and marvelling at how it stayed up. That night when I drove back it had not stayed up and people were dead because of it, thirty-five of them.(prov.vic.gov.au)

Not an intended outcome, you say? No, not intended, but a real outcome nevertheless, like the urban sprawl which has invaded the western bay and the ’surf’ coast, another outcome of the bridge -  making more of Melbourne accessible to commuters

That’s the dilemma - every action, including the default - do nothing - has measurable outcomes and every action comes from a plan by someone, somewhere………….

Which leads me to what seems to be the difficulty with planning today - most of what is done and is going to be done is remediation -trying to fix things up that someone before has mucked up - like the consequences of the West Gate bridge for the coastal areas west of Melbourne; like the consequences of a trade liberalisation policy on water which left most of Australia without adequate reserves of water when a major change in weather patterns has meant that inflows are drastically reduced; like the consequences of a major freeway building programme at a time when known oil reserves cannot match demand and the combination of price rises and dwindling supply will mean that huge amounts of freeway infrastructure will be redundant; like trying to make cities with unsustainably high populations sustainable; like trying to introduce low-energy housing standards in an era when the number of new dwellings is a miniscule percentage of total housing, so improvements will be doodley-squat; and so on and on.

I would like to begin this discussion of remediation with the metaphor of the ageing, sick man.

He is sixty-five years old. He is retired. He has blood pressure problems and heart disease. He smokes, about ten a day down from two packs ten years ago. He has a duodenal ulcer. He has a family who love him, but if nothing is done he will die within five years. Do we do nothing? Or do we give him an educational programme about smoking, give him stents or a triple by pass, or maybe even valve replacement, or open-heart surgery or even a heart transplant? Do we operate on the ulcer, do we educate him in changing his diet? Do we concern ourselves with providing him with some useful occupations during his retirement?

Or do we suggest that he enjoy the love of his family for the short time he has left and leave him to it?

Melbourne is the sick, ageing man - all the cities of the world are sick, ageing men.

Should we spend vast amounts of precious resources trying to make them well again? Or just let them die?

references:

Knight, Frank H., 1944 “The Planful Act” in FREEDOM AND REFORM: ESSAYS IN ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Liberty Press, Indianapolis,1982, pp. 398-425

http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/exhibs/West Gate/Disaster.htm

The housing sector argues that the increase in housing prices is a result of government land use regulation. It’s argued that the policy of urban consolidation and urban containment are driving the increase in land prices, which is a significant factor housing prices. Therefore, I’m going to take this opportunity to examine the link between the housing affordability and Victorian land use planning system.

Housing Affordability

AHURI defines housing affordability as a measure of the financial outcome for a household renting or purchasing the dwelling they need or wish to live in. Community Indicators Victoria state that housing affordability in Victoria is amongst the worst in Australia, with the number of households under mortgage stress increasing from 71,287 in 2001 to 140,960 in 2006 — an increase of 98 per cent. This compared with a national rise of 89 per cent.

Relationship between Land Use Planning and Housing Affordability.

The following section provides a brief background of governance and land use planning. It is important to discuss because the two have a direct implication on housing affordability.

Governance and Land Use Planning

The style of governance in Victoria changed dramatically when the Kennet Government was elected to power. Kennet who was influenced by the political ideology of neo-liberalism sought to reduce the size of the public sector and relied on market processes to promote efficiency and economic growth (Rmit, 2004). His governance style effectively undid the work of all the previous governments who had focused on defining a legitimate role for public decision making and state intervention.

Under Kennet, land use planning was seen as an important component of development, investment and power; and government interference was seen to be hindering development, thus, they went about reducing government regulation in the planning system (RMIT, 2004).

They introduced new planning schemes based on the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) and the Good Design Guide with a focus on medium density development. The need for medium density housing was justified by the benefits of urban consolidation. These actions reduced government control and facilitated development, ie, increase in the number and type of dwellings and what they claimed lead to improving housing affordability.

The following labour government claimed that ‘adhoc planning of the Kennet Government was bad for developers and the community’ (OPT, 2000) But, they hardly altered the Kennet form of planning. They kept the VPP’s and introduced ResCode, a document very similar to the Good Design Guide. The significant change they did make was in 2003 with the introduction of ‘Melbourne 2030 – planning for sustainable growth’ which sought to manage the growth of the city.

The labour government did restore some of the government’s regulatory control of the planning system.

Land Use Planning Controls and Housing affordability

However, it is argued that the measures taken by the labour government to restore land use plannings regulatory capacity and control growth, have in fact contributed to the housing affordability crisis.

Melbourne 2030, in terms of housing affordability seeks to increase the supply of well located affordable housing while reinforcing the policy of urban consolidation and introducing growth controls like the urban growth boundary (UGB). Intiatives of M2030 claimed to addresses housing affordability include:

• Transit Cities program that is designed to improve access, amenity and transport in areas of more affordable housing and to maintain affordable stock in areas targeted for improvement.

• Recognition of the need for a greater understanding of existing and emerging affordability issues;

• The need to provide for the restructuring of public housing stock; and

• Making better use of joint ventures between the private sector and VicUrban.

However, it is contended by UDIA and Cox (2007) that the planning system, specifically, the policies of urban consolidation and growth controls are interfering with the efficiency of the housing market and contributing to increases in land prices and therefore housing affordability. Examples include:

• Consolidation practices combined with the UGB have added to the ‘scarcity’ value of land.

• There is a trend that as there is a decrease in land released for development the average size of each block also decreases while the average price of blocks increases.

• The planning approval processes involves excessive ‘red tape’, duplication, inconsistencies, unnecessary delays and a lack of transparency.

• The cost of delivering affordable housing is increased because of the higher land costs, higher construction and infrastructure costs.

Then what is the solution? Should we reduce government control and put faith in the market to guarantee efficiency and equality? Bere et al (2006) suggests not, he argues for a pro - active planning method. Including the following planning measures:

• Inclusionary zoning – that requires the private sector to provide a percentage of affordable housing as part of any new development

• Planning bonuses and public sector-private sector partnerships – provides development firms with the right to build at higher densities in return for the provision of affordable housing.

Unfortunately, the first method was rejected by M2030, it’s perceived as an added tax that new home owners would not want to absorb. The later has the potential to work and VicUrban is currently in the process of trialling such a scheme which they call Ownhome. But, it is doubted weather this scheme can be rolled out on a scale required to alleviate the housing affordability problem.

It appears that land use planning has contributed to the housing affordability problem. And, Beer etal (2006) argues that contemporary planners will have to find a balance between the desire of ecologically sustainable development on the one hand, which means urban containment that has the effect of driving land prices up, and the objective of boosting the supply of affordable housing on the other. Perhaps land use planning alone can’t solve the housing affordability problems and a whole of government approach would be more effective.

Further Questions:

How can planners meet societies competing aspirations for affordable housing on the one hand and sustainable growth on the other?

What land use planning regulations can you think of which would improve housing affordability?

Reference:

Alves, T., (2004). Medium Density Housing in Melbourne:The management of sustainable and democratic local communities under global pressure for increased urban efficiencies. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), (2006). AHURI Reseach and policy Bulletin: Housing Affordability ISSUE 68, ISSN 1445-3428. Viewed online 11th September 2007

Beer, A., Kearins, B., Pieters, H., (2007). ‘Housing Affordability and Planning in Australia: The Challenge of Policy Under Neo-liberalism’, Housing Studies, 22:1, 11 – 24. Viewed online 5th August 2007

Berry, M., (1999). Unravelling the “Australian Housing Solution”: the Post- War Years*. Housing, Theory and Society; 16: 106–123. viewed online 11th September 2007 < >

Community Indicators Victoria, (2007), Housing Affordability, 12th September 2007, online.

Cox, W (2007). 3rd Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2007 Ratings for Major Urban Markets. Viewed online 13th September 2007.

Office of the Premier and Treasurer, (2000). Minister Encourages Strong & Prosperous Building Industry. Media Release. Viewed online 13th September 2007

Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA), (2006). The 2006 UDIA State of the Land
UDIA National Land Supply Study and Consultation Paper for a National “Cities of the Future” Strategy. Viewed online 11th September 2007

RMIT Univeristy (2004). Week 2 Guide Governance and Planning, Course notes from Managing Contemporary Planning Issues. RMIT University: Melbourne, viewed 11th September 2007< Online @RMIT

So much so that whereas from the post war period to as recently as the early 2000’s the cost of housing was around four times the median household income in recent times this has risen to as high as seven or eight times median incomes (RDC, 2007).

To be in housing stress is broadly considered as being when a household both spends more than 30% of income on rent or on mortgage repayments and their income is ranked in the bottom 40% of the income distribution (NHS, 1991). Therefore due to the scope of people this definition includes, affordable housing is not confined to households eligible for social and emergency housing but also the working poor.

According to the OECD Australia’s capital cities are now among the least affordable places to live in the world, with the most overvalued houses in the western world. They said that the price of housing relative to incomes is 50 per cent higher in Australia compared to other countries studied (in Spoehr, 2006).

Slow land release or low interest rates?

Sustainable planning calls for consolidated and integrated cities with medium density and a curb to the sprawl that has made Australian cities so car dependent. Many aspects of Melbourne 2030 respond to this, such as with the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the increase of densities in the inner city and around activity centres.

The Federal Government however, citing studies from the international research institute Demographia, blame the State Government’s for the increased housing affordability crisis for holding back on land release as an attempt to curb urban sprawl. Many leading economists including from the ANZ and Macquarie Bank dispute this view, identifying a decade of low interest rates, increased migration and cuts to capital gains tax - making negative gearing more attractive, as the cause (Schneiders & Millar, 2007). From this perspective poor housing affordability has thus been due to heightened demand not lack of supply.

The Demographia study has been highly criticised by a number of experts including Peter Newman a Perth planning academic (in Lucas, 2007) and Macquarie Bank’s Rory Robertson (in Gruen, 2007) who believe the study simplistically compares inland American cities such as Detroit and Austin that are considered to be in economic decline to booming, international coastal Australian cities such as Perth and Sydney.

The response to this has been a campaign called ‘The Great Australian Dream’ led by right-leaning thinktanks the Institute of Public Affairs along with the Housing Institute of Australia (HIA) which is designed to secure more land release. Whilst there is no argument to the fact that housing affordability is at an all time low, to rush into the rapid release of more land on the outskirts of major cities perpetuating urban sprawl compromises any ability to create sustainable urban areas on the outskirts of major cities, and from a planning perspective should be immediately rejected. Particularly given that the assumption that growth area development is automatically affordable, recent Oliver Hume Research (OHR, 2007) statistics show that in the past six months only 1/3 of purchasers in Melbourne’s south-east growth area were first home buyers.

So what is the answer and whose responsibility is it?

A number of independent initiatives have been proposed and/or implemented throughout the country as a means of providing affordable housing.

Subsidised housing
Subsidy aimed at making individual houses cheaper on purchase
Federal Labour proposal (Housing Affordability Fund)
Link

Legislate a % of affordable housing in all new significant developments
10% affordable + 5% social housing through a Statutes Amendment (Affordable Housing) Bill
South Australian State Labor Government
Link

Other policy proposals include but are not limited to:·

• Cheaper housing design and delivery
• Developer “density bonuses” (Link)
• Shared Equity Schemes (Link)
• Land gifting (Link)
• Early availability to housing associations

I would argue that due to the convergence of issues such as economy, housing and land use, affordable housing is an all of Government issue and therefore would ideally require a coordinated policy response from the three tiers of decision making authorities to effectively achieve an affordable outcome.

Questions?

Is a coordinated response to the affordable housing crisis possible? Am I heading out of the realm of Planning? Is a response at all needed, should we maybe let sleeping dogs lie and let the market dictate?

References

National Housing Strategy (NHS) 1991, ‘The Affordability of Australian housing’, Issues Paper no.2, AGPS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) - 4130.0.55.001 - Housing Occupancy and Costs, Australia, 2002-03 (Released: 23/02/2005)

Gruen, N, ‘Nailing the cause of sky-high prices’, The Age, 12 July 2007, p.10.

Lucas, C. ‘It’s tale of two cities as fringe dwellers pay the petrol price’, The Age, 14 May 2007, p.3.

Oliver Hume Research (OHR), ‘Bi-annual purchaser profile and sentiment survey: encompassing metropolitan Melbourne’s growth areas’, June 2007, www.oliverhume.com.au

Residential Development Council (RDC). ‘Beyond Reach: A workforce housing crisis in the making’, July 2007, www.affordablehome.com.au

Spoehr, J. ‘Waking up to a Great Australian Nightmare’, Adelaide Review, 19 June 2006.

Schneiders, B & Millar, R. ‘Australian dream just a recession away’, The Age, 17 Feb 2007.

Listen.

Bucolical and natural ideals of the countryside are revealed in historical planning theory moreover these views remain influential on contemporary rural Australia. This notion was evident in Walpolean England and is best illustrated by Walpole’s reaction to the village which offended his view (Schama, 2001), ergo it was removed. Returning to the rural idyll or nature based setting was prevalent before the industrial revolution (Glesson and Low, 2000:153); a reaction to the horrors of industrial capitalism. The Garden City movement attempted to capture the essence of rurality in combining elements of city and country in planning models. The countryside ideal is, as Bunce (1994) in Tonts and Grieve (2002:59) suggests; a romanticised construction of the rural landscape as a means for escaping the grim reality of urban.

The subdivision of rural land into what is termed rural small holdings presents complex arguments both for and against this type of development. Broadly, Australia is experiencing an increasing number of out migrations from urban areas in retreat from the chaos of cities to reside in the peace and tranquillity of rural areas. This certainly gives rise to the demand for rural small holdings needed to accommodate this trend, including the subdivision of large portions of rural land into lifestyle and hobby farm sized allotments and the influx of life styler’s into existing rural small holdings.

The lure for rural life styler’s is predominantly attributed to the aesthetic and amenity values which are present in rural areas (online). Fairweather and Swaffield (1998) highlight the way Arcadian ideals and values have motivated people to move into the country. The idyllic rural vision of a healthy, peaceful and natural way of life is regarded as a driving force behind this trend. Fairweather et al (1998) suggests that traditional rural pursuits are not the primary interest of people taking up residence on rural small holdings as residents remain reliant on urban based incomes. A change of pace, living out a child hood dream, for health and longevity or for peace and quiet the rural milieu accommodates these desires.

The promotion of this form of lifestyle living is exemplified by the lifestyle block boom in New Zealand to the extent that web sites dedicated to promoting this type of living (online). Web sites have also been created to promote the sale of lifestyle sized farm products (online). Was the John Williamson song a number one hit in New Zealand? Furthermore the article by Carnachan (online) demonstrates the attraction and perils of the ‘lifestyle block boom’ in New Zealand. Are there similar campaigns in Australian real estate markets (online)?

Rural lifestyle land holders can be categorised into the following which are defined by Aslin (online):

• Hobby farmer;
• Lifestyle farmer;
• Small farmer; and,
• Tree changer / down shifter.

These types of rural dwellers seek small rural allotments ranging from five to one hundred hectares. It could easily be assumed that the size would vary dependant on the lifestyle sought. For example a tree changer may only need a five hectare allotment to sit and watch the possums play whereas a hobby farmer may require a much larger allotment to allow for the sheep or two or flock? This aspect has created complications for researchers and illustrated by the selection of a significant range for characterising this form of land use. However for the purposes of this weblog the lower end of the range being five to twenty hectares shall be the focal point for discussion.

Related to the consistent enquiry that plagues our planning department – ‘Can I subdivide my rural land?’ – My initial view on the creation of rural smallholdings is an opposing one. Thus, I will concentrate my efforts on the apparent negatives and invite fellow bloggers to refute these views with reference to the contrasting benefits of this type of development.

The Implications of accommodating the life styler’s:

Aslin (online) summarises the potential negative impacts of increasing rural lifestyle landholders in rural areas including rapid property and population turnover; rising living and land costs forcing farmers out or making it impossible to consider expansion; degradation of the natural environment; increased need for new services and infrastructure within expanding areas (a burden on small Local Governments); implications for policy makers in adapting traditional policies to a new audience; and the loss of farming skills.

Tonts et al (2002) examine the commodification of rurality as a result of the lure and emerging trend for rural smallholdings. The commodification of rural smallholdings can be seen in real estate advertising and in previously mentioned web sites. Tonts et al (2002) focuses on the potential for destructive outcomes as a result of concentrating people in Australia’s more scenic rural areas. The article highlights that there is a grave concern that commodification will and has resulted in overdevelopment which ironically demotes the rural milieu that attracted growth in the first instance (Tonts et al, 2002:58). The destructive tendencies of this form of development relate to such complications as community conflicts resulting from divided views and changes to community structures (John Williamson highlights the new Woolies and hard ware store down the road); erosion of the natural environment; rises in rural land prices; displacement of rural cultures and traditions; conflicts with agrarian interests; and loss of productivity and productive farm land. These implications and the growth of rural smallholdings are inextricably linked to rural as a modern commodity.

Sinclair (online) highlights that this increasing trend could have severe implications on Australia’s finite agricultural resource. Furthermore that the potential for land use conflicts between traditional farming practices and rural lifestyle living will increase. Increased non rural habitation in rural areas can reduce the capacity and scope for expansion of existing agriculture. Conflicts attributed to odour, chemical spray drift, noise, domestic pets, stock damage and stress, amenity and weed infestation are common in this scenario (Sinclair, 2003).

Costello (2007) discusses the implications of urban-rural migration consistent with the increasing trend for lifestyle living on receiving rural areas. Costello (2005) draws attention to such aspects as rising house prices and decreased affordability; tensions between existing residents and new comers the result of perceived community structures and conditions.

Knight, Riebsam and Wallace (1995) illustrate that subdivision in areas with high levels of aesthetics and most often biodiversity can have profound impacts on the natural environment. Destruction of habitat and faunal movement corridors for the construction of fences, access tracks, fire management and home sites; disruption of inter and intra specific wild life patters; increased exotic species of plants and animals (dogs, cats, the splendid rabbit and weeds); increased fires and water pollution and land contamination. Knight et al (1995) refute Wuerther’s (1994) assertion that agriculture has far greater implications than subdivision.

I could rattle off quite a substantial list of grounds for why rural smallholding subdivisions are not appropriate including the ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Deliverance principles’ – can anyone infer what I mean by these? However, I will finish here.

There are complex arguments both for and against the creation of rural small holdings particularly where elements of environment, community and agriculture interplay. With an understanding of the issue at hand should planning policies be accommodating this trend? What are the potential benefits for rural areas? Can a balance between traditional rural and the new rural be achieved?

Practical Exercise:

How do various Local Governments deal with subdivision applications / proposals? I have prepared the following scenarios as follows. Will the application be approved? Choose a local government area in Australia and have a look at their policies or codes relating to rural subdivision. What considerations should the assessing officer make? Are there any alternative proposals that might be judged better? What are the implications for approval?

1. Cookie-Cutter Surveyors on behalf of Grandma Dollar-signs have prepared an application to subdivide a 100 hectare parcel of rural land into fifteen equal portions. The site is located thirty kilometres out of town, contains remnant vegetation; includes steeply sloping portions; and is littered with intermittent watercourses. The site also has a large area (50%) of cleared land suitable for non-intensive agriculture. The surrounding area has historically been used for farming and a mix of agricultural land uses are currently operating in the area.

2. Grandma Dollar-signs is at it again, nearing eighty and wanting to fund her retirement. She owns a parcel of rural land which is situated in a very unique part of the Shire and sees the benefit of subdividing. The parcel is 100 hectares and the old dear wants to produce another ten allotments. The Shire is generally tourism focussed with a large number of host-farm type operations being present in the area. The land is generally not suitable for land based agriculture and vegetation in this area is protected. The area has a high rainfall and the terrain is undulating with coastal and rural views available on ridge lines. Roads in the area are becoming increasingly degraded due to the cost of maintenance. Other large rural holdings in the area are also considering Grandma-dollar signs option.

The following includes a number links to State Planning Policies and reference documents that commonly come into play in the Queensland development assessment regime.

Planning Guidelines Separating Agriculture and Residential Land Uses - online

Protection of agricultural land from urban development - online

State Planning Policy 1/92: Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land - online Discretionary

Rural Subdivisions - online

References and Further Reading:

Aitkins, P. (No Date) Subdivision as an intermediate scale planning process for combined agricultural and biodiversity outcomes, Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Land Use Change, accessed online at online, on 12 August 2007.

Aslin, H. (2006) Rural Lifestyle Landholders: Implications for Rural Policy Makers, Natural Resource Managers and Communicators, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, publication accessed online at online, on 12 August 2007.

Barr, N. (2003) Future Agricultural Landscapes, Australian Planner, Volume 40, No. 2, pages 123 – 127.

Bunce, M. (1994) The Countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape, Routledge, London, cited in Tonts, M, and Grieve, S. (2002) Commodification and Creative Destruction in the Australian Rural Landscape: The Case of Bridgetown, Western Australia, Australian Geographical Studies, Volume 40, No. 1, page 59.

Costello, L. (2007) Going Bush: the Implications of Urban-Rural Migration, Geographical Research, Volume 45, No. 1, pages 85 – 94.

Fairweather, J, and Swaffield, S. (1998) In Search of Arcadia: The Persistence of the Rural Idyll in New Zealand Subdivisions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Volume 41, No. 1, pages 111 – 124, accessed via online, on 19 August 2007.

Glesson, B, and Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas, Allen and Unwin, Australia, page 153.

Kelleher, F.M. (2001) Urban encroachment and loss of prime agricultural land, The Australian Society of Agronomy, accessed online at online, on 19 August 2007.

Knight, R.L, Riebsame, W.E, and Wallace. G.N. (1995) Ranching the view: Subdivision versus Agriculture, Conservation Biology, Volume 9, No. 2, Pages 459 – 461.

Phillips, M. (1993) Rural Gentrification and the Processes of Class Colonisation, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 9, No. 2, pages 123 – 140.

Randolf, J. (2004) Environmental Land Use Planning and Management, Island Press, Washington, pages 126 – 128.

Schama, S. (2001) History of Britain: the British way 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London.

Sinclair, I. (2003) Growth Management and Rural Land, EDGE Planning, February, pages 1 – 25, accessed online at online, on 15 August 2007.

Tonts, M, and Grieve, S. (2002) Commodification and Creative Destruction in the Australian Rural Landscape: The Case of Bridgetown, Western Australia, Australian Geographical Studies, Volume 40, No. 1, pages 58 – 70.

Wuerthner, G. (1994) Subdivision versus Agriculture, Conservation Biology, Volume 8, pages 905 – 908.