City of Stirling (Western Australia)’s Post

PIA Tasmania has written to Premier Rockliff to acknowledge the release of the ‘Planning for the Future’ policy. We highlighted the importance of continuing strong leadership at the State level in directing and managing growth across Tasmania. Good strategic planning systems cohesively align infrastructure, housing and economic agendas and provide an effective line of sight between national level priorities such as the National Housing Accord and draft National Urban Policy, and local outcomes. PIA also welcomes the announcement of additional funding for medium density infill development outcomes in our urban environments. This provides the foundation for ongoing leadership in encouraging density done well that delivers liveable outcomes and contributes to great places and communities. We suggested in our letter that support for a small number of pilot projects is the most effective way to use this funding and showcase good outcomes for residents and communities.  Read the letter here: https://lnkd.in/gxTxaWH3

This is a significant start to deal with the challenges we face to make sure Tasmania remains a great place to live and work for all of us. As planners, we are thinking ultimately about how we all live from day to day. Not just for you or me, but your kids and grandkids. We desperately need strategy that is linked across sectors and agencies, and funded so that it can be implemented. We have the fastest regulatory planning system in the Country, but the strategic support for the future is underdeveloped, The Population Policy picks up some of PIA’s asks from recent campaigns, but these were not very ambitious (as many of my colleagues told me) because we are still trying to build the planning system. More is needed if we are to get the best for Tasmania and Tasmanians from all of the current reforms going on with this, the regional land use strategies, the Tasmanian Planning Policies, linkage to national programs, funding and everything else going on in the planning space at the moment.  Felix Ellis, Shane Broad, Helen Burnet, David O'Byrne, Emma Riley, Planning Institute of Australia

Uttlesford going forward with their plan in the context of the emerging changes to the NPPF maybe interesting seeing at present the Local Plan does not propose any development in the Green Belt (para 11.54) and is planning for a housing requirement for the full Plan period (April 2021 to March 2041) of 13,500 Housing completions (April 2021 to March 2024) i.e. 675 dpa against a possible new standard method requirement of 749 dpa. So while under the proposed transition arrangements the plan can proceed to examination (but this must be within the next 18 months because the figure is not 200 lower than the SM) it is unclear if the new approach to green belt in the NPPF will apply if so there could be some real opportunities at the examination. This requires objections to be made to the Regulation 19 Plan.

The Victorian Department of Transport and Planning is seeking feedback on draft planning scheme controls for Strategic Extractive Resources Areas (SERAs) in Lang Lang, Oaklands Junction and Trafalgar by 8 November 2024. These controls aim to safeguard state-significant extractive resources from incompatible land uses and secure affordable housing and infrastructure for Victoria's growing population. We summarise the draft controls and their implications: https://lnkd.in/gvARrTgQ Authors: Joshua Dellios, Allison Tansley and Jemima Jacobson

Canterbury City Council has published a new Local Development Scheme (Sept 2024) which essentially pushes the Local Plan timetable back by a year as a result of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation which has removed the 25 June 2025 deadline for the Local Plan to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (previously the Council was expecting to submit the LP to PINS in February 2025). The Committee Report that went to Cabinet last week suggests the following timeframe: 📍 December 2024 – the Government publishes its new NPPF and Planning Policy Guidance. 📍 May 2025 – LHN figures released. 📍 Autumn 2025 – publication of the council’s final draft for approval by councillors and the launch of a six-week consultation under Regulation 19. 📍 Spring 2026 – subject to the decision above, submission to the Secretary of State. Read online: https://lnkd.in/eRxEeFmS #planning #planners #nationalplanning #canterbury #planningpolicy #localplan

Local Governments are key contributors to shaping development by creating land development regulations and encouraging comprehensive planning principles. At CGA, our amazing Planning Team partners with Local Governments to assist in the process. #comprehensiveplanning #landdevelopment #communitydevelopment

This is excellent, and can help make the conversation more objective and less subjective about the assessment of the Green Belt & development in the Green Belt. If Councils are bring tasked with reviewing their Green Belts, I suggest we need the Government to set out a standard approach / method to review the land to help simplify the process, add more certainty and speed it up! To slot into the new Local Plan-making process too!

Our state is struggling to keep up with the housing demands of a growing population. To help boost the supply of homes, the future State Government needs to introduce an infrastructure contributions framework. Any new housing development needs the right infrastructure to support it, such as stormwater and sewerage connections. But this is an expensive undertaking and too often developers don't want to be the 'first mover' and bear the full cost of providing this infrastructure that other developers can also benefit from at little or no cost to them. This kind of stand-off halts development. A framework that evenly spreads the cost of infrastructure across all of the developer proponents who will benefit from it will solve this issue. This is what our CEO Dion Lester discusses in today's edition of The Mercury 👇

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves’ first speech as Chancellor this week has made it clear that planning reform is a key priority of this Government, with key changes being made to the Green Belt early on in the honeymoon period. The Green Belt is the planning designation most known about, but least understood so defining what it actually means to the general public is going to be an important part of the narrative. As Samuel Stafford from the Home Builders Federation stated in his interview on BBC #politicslive, the Green Belt is incredibly dated. It has lost its meaning. It is not naturally beautiful landscape - we have National Landscapes and National Parks for that. Nor is it inherently ecologically rich land - we have Special Protection Areas / Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the like for that. Instead, the Green Belt is a land use designation. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ (now Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government…) most recent stats state that over 1.6 MILLION hectares of land is Green Belt. To put that into context, that is circa 10 TIMES the size of London. Clearly not all Green Belt land is going to be released for housing, and nor are we advocating for that. But we do, and will, support the reintroduction of Green Belt reviews and the development of Grey Belt land to assist in unlocking house building. However, to remove the confusion among the general public, and subjectivity of the terms among planners (which will no doubt lead to more appeals in the short-term), we would go a step further and consider rebranding this land use in its entirety. If you have a site or land within the Green or perhaps new Grey Belt, now is the time to understand what value could potentially be unlocked. Get in touch with our team on 02037138500 / [email protected].

Very useful insight to those not in industry, green belt or grey belt ?