Different planning systems offer different lessons. In this TBB Insights article, Paul Needham, Principal at TBB Planning, draws on his experience in Queensland to explore how WA can learn from Queensland, and why keeping a focus on outcomes matters most.
After spending most of my planning career in regional WA (along with a stint in UK), I’ve I recently had the opportunity to work in Queensland as Chief Planning & Development Officer at Townsville City Council – the largest and fastest growing city in northern Australia.
Now back in WA, a natural question is: what can we learn from Queensland?
Queensland isn’t perfect—no system is—but there are elements worth paying attention to.
What Queensland does well
There are four aspects of the Queensland system that stand out.
1. A coordinated voice through the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA)
The SARA provides a single, coordinated response when development affects State interests. When an application affects ‘State interests’ – which are clearly and pretty sensibly defined (they would most typically involve environmental or transport considerations), an application must be referred to SARA. SARA then seeks input from other State agencies, such as the equivalent of Main Roads or the Department of Environment (in whatever form it is taking at the time). SARA than determines the State’s position on those issues, not the individual agencies. Clear timeframes for response are also set. Overall, it’s a good system, albeit not without its issues. The role of the ‘State Planner’ as a strong and proactive leader of SARA is also critical in making it effective.
2. Infrastructure planning that looks ahead
Local Government Infrastructure Plans (LGIP) are much broader in scope than WA’s Community Infrastructure Plans, including sewer, water, drainage and transport infrastructure, as well as community and recreation facilities. The plans set out what will be needed and when, and how much it’s estimated to cost, across all those infrastructure types. They also do much of the job done in WA by Developer Contributions Plans. If used effectively, which would mean lining up the LGIP with the rest of the local planning scheme, and the local government’s infrastructure and long-term financial planning, LGIP’s have a big potential to support growth. Importantly, they also mean local governments need to be proactive when it comes to thinking about development.
3. Funding that supports housing delivery
Queensland’s Residential Activation Fund (RAF) is a $2B fund, over four financial years, aimed at accelerating delivery of infrastructure needed to support housing delivery. Both local governments and developers can apply. The RAF is a recognition that, especially over the last few years, the cost burden for infrastructure delivery is falling too heavily on developers and local governments – forcing them to push prices and rates even higher – and slowing down housing rollout. A mix of local government and developer projects in Townsville were awarded over $60M in Round 1, and local governments and developers across the State will be beavering away on Round 2 applications right now, which opened in February.
4. Transparency through e-planning
Queensland’s ‘E-Planning’ portals make application information far more accessible. These arise from a requirement for local governments to make information about applications, both current and past, available via their websites. If I want to find out what applications have been lodged on any site, whether it is in Brisbane, Townsville or somewhere half-way up Cape York, and read, say, the traffic impact assessment, I can do that right now. The State does something similar for the applications it assesses itself here in WA, but getting this kind of information about applications lodged with local governments is usually much harder.
Something to avoid – making life too complicated and seeing the trees not the forest
A general observation is that the Queensland system, just like WA’s, is under constant review. I’m not sure there’s a way of measuring ‘pace of change’ but it certainly feels like it’s gotten faster. Mostly, change seems to involve adding something, such as adding a process requirement, like design review, or issue that needs considering, like bushfire, or creating a new option for getting an approval, like the Significant Development process. It’s not often that something is taken away (the ‘Deemed Provisions’ in WA, which standardised a whole bunch of stuff previously set out in slightly different form in over 130 local government planning schemes, are a notable and valuable exception).
What that means is the system overall gets more complex and challenging to navigate. That process has gone further in Queensland than in WA, and has contributed to a situation where, even more so than in WA, conversation quickly turns to process rather than outcomes. Understanding the process – especially the different approval options that may be available – quickly becomes the centre of conversation.
Do we ask for a ‘MID’? What about doing the ‘Code Assessable’ bit first, and pursuing the ‘Impact Assessable’ bit later? How about a ‘Variation’ or a ‘PoD? Is ‘SFD’ an option? Maybe a ‘PDA’? Are there any other ‘TLAs’ (Three Letter Acronyms) we have forgotten? If you’ve never worked in Queensland, none of that will mean anything to you.
The more valuable bit - talking about the outcomes we want to achieve – can sometimes feel secondary at best. People who aren’t planners, or who haven’t had lots of exposure to the system, don’t know what we’re talking about. Even worse, they could be forgiven for thinking planning is all about process and not actually about outcomes at all. If planning is not about outcomes, though, what are we all here for?
So, one learning, reinforced by my time in Queensland, is the need to create a system, and a culture, focused on outcomes – where process is the servant of outcome, and not the other way around. In other words, making sure we are seeing the forest, and not just the trees.
I am enjoying re-engaging with the WA system, picking up what I’ve missed when I was away. But it’s also nice to be able to reflect on how things are done elsewhere, and how we might learn from them.
6 min read
