Situating Australian Metropolitan Planning

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 16:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

Situating Australian MetropolitanPlanningRaymond Bunker aa City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment ,University of New South Wales , Sydney, NSW, 2052, AustraliaPublished online: 15 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Raymond Bunker (2009) Situating Australian Metropolitan Planning,International Planning Studies, 14:3, 233-252, DOI: 10.1080/13563470903450598

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563470903450598

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13563470903450598

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563470903450598

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Situating Australian Metropolitan Planning

RAYMOND BUNKERCity Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney

NSW 2052, Australia

ABSTRACT This paper argues that there are distinctive characteristics in the spatial strategiesconstructed for the state capital cities of Australia. To investigate this hypothesis, the paperconducts a review of the major plans produced since the Second World War, and the reasonsthey take the form they do. It finds that there are strong common features in the plans formulatedfrom the end of the war until the 1980s. After a period of neglect, metropolitan strategies arethen made by state governments, all of them ruled by Labor governments, in the 2002–2009period. While these strategies amplify and extend these distinctive characteristics, more uncertainand dynamic conditions mean that they need frequent revision and connection with infrastructure,transportation and state development plans.

1. Introduction

The distinctive nature of Australian urbanization has been an important area of discussion,

analysis and comment over the years (Stilwell, 1974, 1993; Neutze, 1977, 1978; Troy,

1978, 1995; Forster, 2004, 2006; Randolph, 2004). In a similar vein are texts on Australian

urban planning (Gleeson & Low, 2000; Hamnett & Freestone, 2000; Thompson, 2007).

This raises the question as to whether the series of important metropolitan strategies

for the state mainland capitals of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide,

which have been produced since the Second World War, have distinctive features

which reflect Australian society, space and governance. It has been argued that these

three characteristics shape spatial discourses of the kind embodied in metropolitan plans

(Madanipour et al., 2001; Richardson & Jensen, 2003; Salet et al., 2003; Healey, 2006).

The same kind of approach was used by Gleeson and his colleagues in 2004 when they

carried out a socio-theoretic analysis of metropolitan planning in Australia in terms of

five investigative themes — policy, space, governance, finance and democracy (Gleeson

et al., 2004).

This article investigates the hypothesis that there is a distinctive style of metropolitan

planning in Australia. A similar approach has been used to organize a history of metropo-

litan planning in Australia in a series of planning ‘paradigms’ for each decade since the

Second World War (Hamnett & Freestone, 2000). However, this paper attempts a

further level of abstraction, similar to that used by Gleeson and colleagues in 2004. It is

International Planning Studies

Vol. 14, No. 3, 233–252, August 2009

Correspondence Address: Raymond Bunker, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment,

University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: þ61-2-9385-5935; Tel.: þ61-2-9385-

5309; Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1356-3475 Print/1469-9265 Online/09/030233–20 # 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13563470903450598

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

also concerned with the evolution and dynamics of any such distinctive character

(Sanyal, 2005).

The period since the Second World War falls naturally into three main parts. The first

covers the ‘long boom’ years from the end of the war to the 1980s. The second covers the

1980s and 1990s, a time of rapid changes in society, globalization, outsourcing and priva-

tization of many public services, and a change to neoliberalism in government. The third

comprises the period from 2000 to now when Labor governments came to power in all

state governments and engaged in various forms of plan-making including metropolitan

strategies for the five mainland state capitals.

Given the limitations of space, discourse analysis is used to establish the presence of par-

ticular themes in socio-political space at the beginning of each of the three periods under

review. The main metropolitan plans are then analysed to ascertain their inherent discourses

in the way Searle (2004) reviewed the 1994 and 1999 metropolitan strategies for Sydney.

By using both these deductive and inductive approaches, it is hoped to combine textual

analysis with an understanding of the political, economic and social context within

which debates and arguments about the nature and content of policy take place, in order

to gain insights into the nature of the plans and their strengths and weaknesses.

2. The Shaping of Metropolitan Planning from 1945 to 1980

2.1 The Issues Faced in Metropolitan Planning

The immediate challenge facing Australia after the war was that of post-war reconstruc-

tion. In preparation for this reconstruction, the Department of Post-war Reconstruction

set up a Commonwealth Housing Commission to report on the physical aspects of

planning and development. Its 1944 final report was a landmark document (Common-

wealth Housing Commission, 1944). It provided a framework for the introduction of a

Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement in 1945 to build the housing needed after

the war. Significantly, in Part V of its final report dealing with national, regional and

town planning, the Commonwealth Housing Commission recommended that this

growth should take place within a planning framework.

Relatively stable conditions existed from the end of the Second World War until the

1980s and a nation-building programme began under the auspices of the so-called Austra-

lian Settlement (Kelly, 1992; Gleeson & Low, 2000). A rapid rate of population growth

was attained with the high birthrate of the post-war years supplemented by a strong immi-

gration programme. Investment from overseas was encouraged. The expansion of manu-

facturing industry took place protected by high tariff walls, and was accompanied by a

guaranteed minimum wage. This growth was concentrated on the state capital cities and

was accompanied by headlong suburban expansion. In this period, the main challenge

facing metropolitan planners was accommodating and servicing this growth. A major

concern was whether urban goods and services were available to all on a reasonably

equal basis (Troy, 1981).

2.2 The Principal Metropolitan Plans

While all the metropolitan plans in Australia since the Second World War to 2000 have

been reviewed (Hamnett & Freestone, 2000), many of them were extensions of, or modi-

fications of, foundational plans and only those seminal ones are discussed here.

234 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

2.2.1 The Cumberland County Council Scheme for Sydney (Cumberland County

Council, 1948). The first post-war metropolitan plan—or County Scheme—for Sydney

established many of the characteristics of later plans of this kind. It was prepared under

the provisions of the New South Wales Local Government (Town and Country Planning)

Amendment Bill of 1945. This authorized the preparation of town and country planning

schemes by municipal and shire councils and the preparation of such a scheme for the

County of Cumberland, or Sydney region by a ‘county council’ formed for that purpose.

This county council—the Cumberland County Council—consisted of ten members

elected by the then forty constituent municipal and shire councils.

Its proposals were heavily influenced by the British practice of the time including a

vision to improve the living conditions of city-dwellers: ‘a pleasanter place to live in,

more efficient for business and a healthier, safer place for children to grow up in’

(Winston, 1957:39). Part of this included a ‘green belt’ like the previous London plans

of 1943 and 1945 (Abercrombie, 1945), which filled a number of purposes, including

recreation and acting as a ‘lung’ for the city. The plan was comprehensive and detailed,

and arranged land uses and communications to accommodate an anticipated population

increase of some half million by 1972. It included a network of ‘County Roads’, and a

system of District Centres or concentrations of business and commercial activities which

were meant to act as the focus for relatively self-contained districts of suburban living.

The Scheme was soon overtaken by a much higher rate of growth than that had been

anticipated.

But its progress established two important principles. One was that metropolitan plans

would become state documents. The essential public works and infrastructure which

provided the skeleton for metropolitan growth and change were provided and funded by

state agencies. Their timing and coordination could not be governed by an indirectly

elected local government planning body, and inevitably planning was drawn closer and

closer to state government operations. The Cumberland County Council was abolished

in 1964 and responsibility for metropolitan planning became one of the tasks of the

State Planning Authority of New South Wales, a statutory body representing the Crown.

The second characteristic was the non-participation by the Commonwealth Government

in the planning of the major cities of Australia. The County Scheme proposed that the costs

of the plan should be shared with Commonwealth, State and local governments each

contributing one-third. With the refusal of the Commonwealth to do so, the Scheme had

to be modified (Winston, 1957:59–60), and apart from two short-lived periods from

1972 to 1975 and in the early 1990s (Troy, 1978; Lloyd & Troy, 1981; Badcock, 1993;

Alexander, 1994; Orchard, 1999), the Commonwealth Government has taken no interest

in urban affairs. The dysfunctional results of this have been well described by Stilwell

and Troy (2000) and Gleeson (2001).

2.2.2 Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of

Works, 1954). The second post-war metropolitan plan learned from the County of

Cumberland Scheme. The physical infrastructure accompanying settlement and servicing

the growing towns was provided by the colonial (later state) governments under the rubric

of ‘colonial socialism’ (Butlin, 1982) as it was aptly described. The preparation of this plan

was appropriately undertaken by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, which

— as its name indicates — was responsible for providing and coordinating much of this

infrastructure. Warily, it provided for a future population of two and a half million

Situating Australian Metropolitan Planning 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

without specifying when this might occur. However, it showed two different projections of

possible growth for Melbourne reflecting the growth of the national population under two

different assumptions regarding migrant inflow.

In the event, that population was reached in the early 1970s, and in 1971 the Board of

Works introduced Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region, which

planned further growth in the form of growth corridors separated by green wedges: a

principle widely adopted in metropolitan plans of the time (Morison, 2000). The Board

also articulated this suburban growth through a system of district centres which it had

used in the 1954 plan and this was strengthened in its final plan, theMetropolitan Strategy

of 1980.

2.2.3 The Advisory Plan for the Perth Metropolitan Region (Stephenson & Hepburn,

1955) and the Metropolitan Region Scheme Report (Metropolitan Regional Planning

Authority, Western Australia, 1962). In 1952, the government of Western Australia

invited Gordon Stephenson as a consultant to prepare a plan for the metropolitan region

of Perth, in conjunction with Alistair Hepburn the Town Planning Commissioner. This

plan, although advisory, was quite influential. It drew attention to the concentration of

metropolitan functions and responsibilities at the state level and how important it was

to coordinate and deploy these to service and direct urban growth and change. As one

important aspect of this, a Metropolitan Transport Trust was formed in 1957 to take

over bus operations from private companies and coordinate and develop this form of

public transport. The report suggested that a regional planning authority should be estab-

lished to prepare a regional plan under the supervision of the state government and with its

participation.

The report took a long-term view of population growth, opining that Perth could well

grow from its then population of 387,000 to one million by 1985 although the ‘validity

of the Plan will not be impaired if these proportions are not realized’ (Stephenson &

Hepburn, 1955:41). It then went on to propose population targets for 46 districts in

terms of their likely holding capacity amounting to some 1,447,000 people, with new

development predominantly ‘one-fifth acre and one quarter acre single dwelling sites’

(Stephenson & Hepburn, 1955:151).

The Stephenson–Hepburn Plan made fairly specific development proposals for the

districts defined, with detailed zoning proposals to accommodate them, including proposed

district centres. This degree of precision was accompanied by an acknowledgement that

these proposals might not happen in the way outlined. This important point was picked

up by the metropolitan region scheme report accompanying the new statutory scheme

issued in 1962 (Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority). The general future shape

and form of the city was retained, but the scheme was made more general, more binding

and less dynamic than the regional plan.

2.2.4 Report on the Metropolitan Area of Adelaide (Town Planning Committee of South

Australia, 1962). Under the amended Town Planning Act of 1929, a Town Planning

Committee was established in South Australia in 1955 to prepare a report on Adelaide

and recommend proposals to deal with the issues it shaped. The result was one of the

most comprehensive and detailed reports on a metropolitan area ever produced including

a detailed land use survey of all land and buildings classified into 35 categories (Forster &

McCaskill, 2007).

236 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The report envisaged the population of metropolitan Adelaide expanding from its 1961

figure of 652,000 to 1,384,000 by 1991 although it commented that this would depend on

the level of overseas migration into Australia (Town Planning Committee of South

Australia, 1962:279). The report laid out the land uses for metropolitan Adelaide

needed to accommodate this scale of growth in a fairly detailed fashion. It was estimated

that 231,000 new dwellings would be required, of which 39,200 would be in medium or

higher density configurations (Town Planning Committee of South Australia,

1962:222). Outside the central city, eight district centres were identified to serve the

major ‘planning districts’ into which metropolitan Adelaide was divided.

The report was lying on the table, till it was picked up by a new Labor government

elected in March 1965, which passed the Planning and Development Act in 1967

whereby the Report became the authorized development plan for metropolitan Adelaide.

As part of this, local government plans were to be brought into line with its fairly detailed

recommendations. The plan thus became the basis for the growth of metropolitan Adelaide

for almost a generation.

2.2.5 Sydney Region Outline Plan (State Planning Authority of New South Wales,

1968). The aim of this plan was to help Sydney achieve a status as a world city, but

also to organize a well-planned pattern of suburban growth with attractive residential

amenity. In fact, it had little to say about any renewal or change in the existing urban

fabric.

Contrary to the detailed proposals that characterized most metropolitan plans of this

time, the name ‘Outline Plan’ deliberately reflected its approach of ‘principles, policies

and broad strategy’ (State Planning Authority of New South Wales, 1969:3). It envisaged

Sydney’s population growing from the then total of 2.7 million people to about 5.5 million

by 2000, of which some half million would be accommodated in other areas of the state. It

showed the broad distribution of this population growth, but stressed that the ‘translation

of the broad proposals for any area into detailed plans . . . is primarily a matter for local

councils . . . within the general intentions of the Outline Plan’ (State Planning Authority

of New South Wales, 1968:5). However, to facilitate properly serviced and coordinated

suburban growth, it showed the preferred staging of this growth in three decade-long

periods from 1970. This was so successful that it was referred to as ‘a developers’ guide’.

The Plan was influenced by the ‘systems thinking’ of the time. The theoretical basis of

this was articulated by McLoughlin (1969) in his influential Urban and Regional Plan-

ning: A Systems Approach. This argued that cities could be seen as interlocked and

dynamic systems. While McLoughlin’s analysis extended beyond physical systems of

infrastructure, it resonated powerfully in the systems of service provision of electricity,

gas, transportation, telecommunications, water supply and sewerage. The nature of

these systems and their operating requirements were also comprehensively analysed in

two special issues of the Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal (1969).

While the Plan supported the principle of a poly-nucleated city, only Parramatta and

Campbelltown were identified as second-order centres outside central Sydney. Parramatta

had been identified for this role previously because of its central position as Sydney spread

to the west, north west and south west (see Figure 1). It was conceded that other lesser

centres would develop as suburban growth continued and the more important of these

were identified reflecting the ‘principle of creating strong new commercial centres to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

secure a more balanced distribution of commercial activity and employment’ (State Plan-

ning Authority of New South Wales, 1968:17).

2.2.6 Brisbane. Brisbane did not produce a metropolitan plan at this time. An Office of

Coordinator-General had been established in 1938 with the responsibility for coordinating

infrastructure provision and major projects.

2.2.7 Summary. The metropolitan plans of this period reflect the responsibility of state

governments for planning the growth and change of their capital cities. The emphasis was

on making sure that the physical infrastructure was provided to support job growth and

strong low-density suburban expansion. In this, the plans were largely successful in the

stable conditions of the long boom. This was further aided by the short-lived intervention

Figure 1. The strategy for Sydney in City of Cities (2005).

238 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

of the Commonwealth Government in the 1972–1975 period when initiatives such as the

sewerage backlog programme and the land acquisition programme to buy broadacre land

for urban expansion provided resources to help implement the plans (Troy, 1978; Lloyd &

Troy, 1981).

While differing in their emphases, the plans reviewed had the following common

features:

. long range planning a generation ahead;

. acting as a coordinating instrument for infrastructure development;

. organizing low-density suburban extension with little attention to renewal or redevelop-

ment of older established parts of the city;. a comprehensive and detailed arrangement of activities, land uses, location of centres

and communications reflecting planning legislation that married strategic purposes for

directing metropolitan growth with supervision and control of local planning instru-

ments; and. relying largely on the private sector to build the city within the infrastructure framework

provided and the zoning of land use.

3. The 1980s and 1990s

3.1 Changing Conditions

These stable conditions changed in the 1980s and 1990s, leading to the dismantling of the

Australian Settlement. Demographic and cultural changes led to increasing numbers of

households of different character and lifestyle to the traditional nuclear family. The birth-

rate dropped. With globalization, the opening up of the Australian economy to the outside

world took place with the floating of the exchange rate, reduction of tariffs and customs

duties, and the growth of the financial services sector. The traditional sources of migrants

from the United Kingdom and Europe were supplemented by those from the Middle East,

India and South East Asia. Some environmental problems began to emerge including air

quality, biodiversity, use of the limited supply of good agricultural land, and dryland and

irrigated area salinity.

State governments followed the neoliberal trend (Gleeson & Low, 2000) and extensive

outsourcing and privatization of public services took place. The pattern varied from state

to state but affected water supply, management and use; energy production and distri-

bution; and public transport. Public–private partnerships were used to build important pro-

jects such as rail links, toll roads and tunnels with mixed results. Provision, coordination

and delivery became fragmented reflecting a more universal trend (Graham & Marvin,

2001). Accountancy and reliability suffered (Troy, 1999).

In terms of city planning, there were also important changes. When releasing a review of

the Sydney Region Outline Plan in 1980, the then NSWMinister of Planning and Environ-

ment commented that ‘the issues confronting planning have broadened to include environ-

mental, economic and social aspects of land use decisions’ (Bedford, 1980). This

statement was largely triggered by the lack of jobs and social isolation that accompanied

outer suburban areas. But it did open the door to the possibility of physical determinism in

planning, if it was not accompanied by the other necessary programmes and policies to

address such issues.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

As part of these changes, many saw advantages in a more compact city, with more

varied housing forms, higher densities and mixed land uses (Newman, 1992; Newman

& Kenworthy, 1992; Holliday & Norton, 1995; Holliday, 2000). These ideas were influ-

ential mainly in their arguments for reducing reliance on the car (Newman & Kenworthy,

1989) or in providing a wider range of dwelling types and conditions. The perceived

deficiencies in good urban design and the shaping of places in suburbia were addressed

by the proponents of ‘new urbanism’ (Gleeson, 2006).

3.2 Metropolitan Planning Proposals of the Time

The metropolitan plans of these two decades reflected these changing and sometimes con-

fused dynamic circumstances. While one might agree that in ‘the early 1980s, metropolitan

planning in Australia was in the doldrums’ (Lennon, 2000:149), it would be difficult to

accept that the 1990s saw the revival of metropolitan planning as he then argued.

In Melbourne, the principal document was Living Suburbs, produced by a conservative

(Liberal-National) government with ‘little direct oversight of spatial land uses’ (Dodson,

2009:113) such as green wedge boundaries and the hierarchy of district centres. It also

raised much opposition among resident groups in its endorsement of urban consolidation

(Lewis, 1999).

In Sydney, three plans were produced in the space of eleven years: those in 1988 and

1998 by Labor governments and the middle one in 1994 by a Liberal-National one.

They reflected the idea of ‘urban management’ (Australian National Commission for

UNESCO, 1978; Neutze, 1982; Neutze & Mant, 1988) where plans were less concerned

with blueprints for future metropolitan growth and change and instead presented it as a

‘corporate plan of the whole government’ (Department of Planning, NSW, 1994:11)

relying on state agencies to deliver coordinated outcomes. Changing conditions and

changes of government with the inevitable reorganizations of government administration

did not help these new plans, with their broad statements of aims, objectives, challenges,

issues and principles within generalized spatial configurations (Searle, 2004). The last one,

Shaping our Cities (Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, NSW, 1998), consisted of

some thirty pages and ‘provides the broad updated framework for planning priorities in

Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the Central Coast’ (Department of Urban Affairs

& Planning, NSW, 1998:4).

In Adelaide, a promising plan resulting from a planning review commissioned by a

Labor government (Hamnett, 2000) was overtaken by the election of a Liberal-National

Party government which appropriated the plan and turned it into a Planning Strategy

for Metropolitan Adelaide (Department of Premier & Cabinet South Australia, 1994) in

which it showed little interest other than showcasing the government’s successes in attract-

ing businesses to Adelaide (Hamnett, 2000).

4. The Metropolitan Plans 2002–2009

4.1 New Imperatives

The new millennium brought some important new issues and changes. The use of metro-

politan planning measures to enhance the competitiveness of the capital city had emerged

as a leading theme in the Sydney Region Outline Plan. In the latter years of the twentieth

240 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

century, this became a feature of the metropolitan planning proposals of that time

(Hamnett, 2000; Searle, 2004). It assumed even more prominence in the twenty-first

century.

In a similar vein, the issue of sustainability became more and more prominent. There

had been long-held concerns about biodiversity, air quality, rural–urban fringe develop-

ment and waste management. To these were added powerful new imperatives brought

about by an increasing realization that the urban footprint of the city and its demands

on natural resources required radical reassessment and response. All cities suffered

water restrictions as drought took hold, and urban water management and use became a

major concern (Troy, 2008). By 2009, all capital cities were constructing desalination

plants to augment their traditional sources of water supply and were engaged in water

recycling initiatives.

Australia has enjoyed low fuel costs, and car ownership and use is very high. The rising

cost of fuel in recent years, and the nearness of peak world oil production have increased

the need to reduce dependency on the car (Rickwood et al., 2008; Rickwood &

Glazebrook, 2009). To do so would also make a contribution to the reduction of green-

house gas emissions (Glazebrook & Rickwood, 2008). The issue of lessening the

impact of climate change also arises in the sources of energy production and its use by

households and businesses.

Sustainability has thus become a major issue built into spatial planning (Beatley &

Newman, 2009). It is a principal theme in all metropolitan strategies of this time, although

it is interesting to note that it relates most strongly to natural resources, environmental

conditions and ecological systems. The issue of social equity and sustainability has dimin-

ished in interest, although it remains as important as ever (Randolph & Holloway, 2005).

However, as far as planning is concerned, the most important feature of this period

was the election of Labor governments to all the states in Australia. For almost all the

2000–2009 period, such governments were in power, except for the election of a

Liberal-Country Party government in Western Australia in 2008. The importance of plan-

ning for this changing future was a major feature of this period. It started with the election

of a Labor government in Victoria in 1999 and the preparation of a state plan, following

the earlier example set in Tasmania (Crowley & Coffey, 2007). Subsequently, state plans,

metropolitan strategies and infrastructure strategies were developed in most states in

different ways and sequences and had a symbiotic relationship. Their interaction,

sequencing and relationships became very important.

4.2 The Metropolitan Strategies

The metropolitan plans of the long boom set out the long-term future for the city in terms

of land uses and communications, which also expressed social, community and economic

purposes. Later years saw the development of planning proposals for economic develop-

ment, social and community services, water and energy management, which were separ-

ated from, but connected with, the metropolitan strategies which were also expected to

support those other initiatives. Abstract purposes developed spatial sensitivities about

location, connection and place, and the built environment was shaped to promote those

imperatives. It is to those fluid boundaries, overlapping spaces, crucial omissions,

muddled connections and successful compound initiatives that we now turn.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

However, it is useful to indicate that the results show a reinforcement of the character-

istics of metropolitan planning in the long boom mixed with uncertain connections and

interactions with state plans, infrastructure plans, transportation and sustainability plans.

The particular character of this symbiosis varied in each state, and the following review

picks up the important features in this regard in each plan.

4.2.1 Melbourne 2030 (Department of Infrastructure, Victoria, 2002). This metropoli-

tan strategy, the first in this seven-year period, was well formulated and influential in its

impact on those which came later. It followed the state plan Growing Victoria Together

(Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria, 2001, revised 2005), which set the scene

and context for the preparation of a number of plans. The state plan has a hierarchical

structure with five broad visions followed and articulated in 10 goals, with progress

towards these expressed in a number of targets. Progress in achieving these targets is

reported annually in Budget Paper 3 concerned with the service delivery. Its main empha-

sis is on economic growth, and this is picked up in the metropolitan strategy which also

contains measures to achieve some of the targets set in the state plan, particularly those

relating to the improvement in public transport.

Early research forMelbourne 2030 discussed the influence that urban policy and metro-

politan strategy might have in strengthening the economic competitiveness of Melbourne

(SGS, 2000). It concluded that the most important policy ‘levers’ were as follows:

. road network planning;

. public transport policy;

. transportation pricing policy;

. activity centres policy;

. employment zone policy and standards; and

. airports.

From population forecasts and trends in household formation, it was estimated that

620,000 new dwellings would be needed by 2030 and this increase was allocated to five

sub-regions making up the metropolitan area. There is a strong use of activity centres

as an instrument of planning and focus of intensified development. Melbourne 2030

makes extensive and comprehensive use of them based on a wide-ranging and detailed

consultant’s review (McNabb et al., 2001).

There is a pronounced change from new greenfields development to infill, renew and

reconstruct the existing urban area. An Urban Growth Boundary was defined in the

rural–urban fringe. Although 38% of dwelling starts in the period 1996/1997–2000/2001 were on greenfields sites, this proportion was expected to drop to 31% in the

2001–2030 period. The corresponding proportions for major redevelopment sites

(which are mainly major activity centres) were 24% and 42%, respectively. The remaining

proportions were in dispersed urban and non-urban development (within existing outlying

suburban areas together with a small amount of development in and around small rural

townships) at 38% and 28% in the two periods mentioned.

The plan reinforces the characteristics of those produced a generation earlier, and its

proposals were couched in fairly prescriptive terms. This led to widespread criticism by

academics at the time who argued that it was unrealistic (Mees, 2003; O’Connor, 2003;

Birrell et al., 2005). More recently, it has been argued that the strategy was dominated

242 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

by land use considerations, and lacked an effective process for delivering the infrastructure

needed, particularly the necessary improvements to public transport on which much of the

plan was predicated (Dodson, 2009). But it was also noted that this issue was being

addressed and that a new transport scheme in 2006 ‘marked a significant turn in the

Victorian government’s thinking on infrastructure in Melbourne’ in that ‘there was an

infrastructure plan that listed a set of possible new infrastructure projects accompanied

by cost estimates and approximate implementation timeframes’ (Dodson, 2009:115).

In December 2008, a revised metropolitan strategy was released, recognizing the higher

rate of growth than that anticipated in Melbourne 2030. It was called Melbourne 2030:

A Planning Update Melbourne @ 5 million (Department of Planning & Community

Development, Victoria, 2008). In general, its proposals were less prescriptive than that

ofMelbourne 2030 and included a revision of the Urban Growth Boundary; concentration

on growth in six new Central Activities districts; ‘employment corridors’ linking activity

centres and specialized precincts such as airports and universities; and the building of

284,000 new dwellings in growth areas at the fringe, somewhat relaxing the compact

city provisions of Melbourne 2030.

Shortly afterwards The Victorian Transport Plan was released, which was linked with

the planning update (Department of Transport, Victoria, 2008). It contained costings and

scheduling of projects and programmes. These were also repeated in Appendix E of

Budget Paper 3 in the May 2009 state budget. These actions begin to more effectively

link metropolitan land use planning with infrastructure provision, most importantly in

transport planning. It convinced the federal government to allocate $3.265 billion for

two Victorian projects in its $8.453 billion stimulus for infrastructure spending on

roads, rail and ports as part of its ‘Nation Building for the Future’ programme in its

May 2009 budget.

4.2.2 Sydney’s City of Cities (Department of Planning, 2005). This strategy was

heavily influenced by Melbourne 2030 and the same consultants carried out research

into its economic geography (SGS Economics & Planning, 2004). It took some of the

features of the Melbourne plan even further. It was dominated by the need to support

Sydney’s status as Australia’s global city, which could not be taken for granted (Depart-

ment of Planning, 2005:45). Its main proposals are shown in Figure 1.

‘Economy and Development’ is the first section in City of Cities and identifies and maps

a number of knowledge and high skill industries in areas such as finance; information and

communication; health and education; advertising, news and media; logistics and trans-

port; and hospitality, visitor and cultural activities. Many of these tend to cluster together

and form specialist employment nodes. Most are concentrated in a ‘Global Arc’ linking

the central city to inner suburbs to the north and south. There are, accordingly, ideas of

reinforcing these clustering propensities so that these activities draw strength from each

other and build into effective drivers of innovation and competitiveness.

Accordingly, the central business district south of the harbour together with North

Sydney is defined as ‘Global Sydney’. The second biggest centre is Parramatta, a ‘regional

city’ to the west, which has been a focus of investment and development for many years. A

sophisticated hierarchy of activity centres is developed, together with specialized centres

as in the Melbourne plan. Job targets are set for all these major existing or potential centres

for the year 2031. Complementing and joining major centres are ‘economic’, ‘renewal’,

and ‘enterprise’ corridors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

In encouraging a more compact and higher-density city, 60–70% of the new houses

needed by 2031 are to be located in existing urban areas amounting to 445,000 dwellings,

mainly in the form of attached housing in medium- or high-density configurations. The

wider metropolitan area is divided into eleven sub-regions, and the number of potential

dwellings by 2031 shown in each, as is the number of jobs. A later sub-regional planning

process allocates dwelling numbers to each of the councils making up the sub-region.

Three of these sub-regions take the bulk of new construction in greenfields locations,

mostly in the north-west and south-west growth sectors. Government plans for these

sectors map out the detailed character of transit-oriented urban development in each

sector involving a centres hierarchy, permeable street patterns, and residential densities

graduated according to access to public transport and centres.

The planning process behind City of Cities is the ‘predict and provide’ approach with

detailed articulation of its physical form accompanied by prescriptive targets as to popu-

lation numbers, dwellings and employment. However, its weakest feature is in its transport

proposals, with no clear strategy to balance public and private transport modes or to

develop more effective systems of public transport, particularly to serve Global Sydney.

The heavy rail network was to be extended to serve new growth areas to the north-west

and south-west, together with improvements in the existing urban area including some

rail and road links but also relying on bus corridors to join major activity centres.

Nevertheless, a State Infrastructure Strategy for the next ten years (Office of Financial

Management, NSW Treasury, 2006) supported the proposals in City of Cities and used its

maps. It was followed by an Urban Transport Statement by the Premier (Iemma, 2006).

However, these promising signs were not fulfilled by action. Some of the fundamental

flaws in the transport proposals in City of Cities and changes in the premier and senior

ministers in the Labor government led to confused and arbitrary policy-making.

Global Sydney does not have the fast, frequent, reliable underground systems that

underpin global cities such as London, Paris, New York, and Tokyo, and which serve

the clusters of mixed enterprises that perform global functions. There were suddenly

moves to remedy this deficiency, leading to questionable and competing ‘metro’ proposals

to serve high-density areas in the inner suburbs and central business districts. This and the

global economic downturn led to a mini-budget in November 2008 (Treasurer of NSW,

2008) which abandoned the heavy rail links to new growth areas at the fringe, and deferred

an inner suburban metro proposal initiated by the former premier Morris Iemma in favour

of a controversial CBD Metro which did not attract significant support in the federal

government’s budget of May 2009 mentioned above.

The Minister of Planning in New South Wales had announced a review of the metropo-

litan strategy. Reputable community organizations such as the Friends of Greater Sydney

have produced alternative public transport plans.

4.2.3 The South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005–2026 (Office of Urban

Management, Queensland, 2005). Unlike other states, Queensland has relatively large

municipal authorities with a wide range of functions. The largest of these is the City of

Brisbane with almost a million people at the 2006 Census. In 1991, a Regional Organis-

ation of Councils was formed for South East Queensland and a project formed with the

state government to coordinate and service broad land use growth in what became the

fastest-growing urban region in Australia. A regional growth management framework

was produced in the following decade, undergoing a number of drafts and revisions in

244 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

the process. It was followed by the preparation of a regional plan by the Office of Urban

Management in the state government resulting in the South East Queensland Regional

Plan of 2005 (Dodson, 2009). As the name of the state agency making the plan indicates,

in some ways the plan used a more sophisticated and organized system of urban manage-

ment than that of the New South Wales plans of the 1990s.

While this plan echoes many of the themes and proposals of the Sydney and Melbourne

strategies, it is in a generally less prescriptive form— perhaps because of its long and par-

ticipatory process. It has ‘indicative’ planning populations for the years 2016 and 2026 by

sub-region, although these are followed by estimates of the numbers of dwellings required

by local government areas in the 2004–2016 and 2016–2026 periods. In the earlier period,

40% of all dwellings are to be provided by infill or redevelopment in existing urban areas

and this is envisaged as rising to 50% in the latter period. Unlike the Melbourne and

Sydney strategies, it does not have one single map consolidating its key proposals but a

series of maps about different features such as activity centres which ‘are intended to

represent general concepts for the purpose of broad-scale regional planning’ (Office of

Urban Management, Queensland, 2005:73).

Dodson (2009:118) points out that the Regional Plan had two significant provisions

which strengthen its authority and effectiveness. These comprised a statutory requirement

for local municipalities to produce local growth management strategies to implement the

spatial objectives of the plan, and that the plan was to be accompanied by a parallel South

East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program, revised annually.

There have been significant developments since the 2005 Regional Plan. In November

2008, a Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031 (Department of

Infrastructure & Planning, Queensland, 2008) was released for discussion. Since 2005,

some amalgamation of local councils has taken place, and population and economic

growth has been unexpectedly high. The draft plan sets a number of ‘strategic directions’

to address issues such as climate change and future oil price increases and the reduction

of automobile dependence and congestion. It develops a broad regional perspective

of land use which acts as a framework for detailed local plans, without itself becoming

absorbed in this detail. Thus, the Draft Plan allocates all land in the region into

three categories: regional landscape and rural production, urban footprint and rural

living area.

The Draft Plan does set targets for construction of dwellings in local government areas

by 2031 and seeks to raise the proportion of these provided by infill or redevelopment to

45%. Two important initiatives support this policy. One is the establishment of a metro-

politan development programme, used in other states, to monitor the broadacre and

infill development rates and the availability of land stocks. The other is the drawing up

of a transport plan for the region called Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional

Transport Plan for South East Queensland, which should be finished in 2010.

The annual infrastructure plan and programme has become part of the state budget

included in Budget Paper 3, the State Capital Program. It is the largest infrastructure pro-

gramme in the country, and contains an allocation for activity centre renewal and transit-

oriented development. This question of infrastructure renewal to support a denser city has

been relatively neglected (Wilmoth, 2005).

4.2.4 Perth’s ‘Network City’ (Western Australian Planning Commission and Department

of Planning and Infrastructure, 2004). This is a strategy much more oriented to process


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

than any of the others. It claims to be ‘the foundation for active policy and plan making,

not a blueprint or a master plan simply to be carried out’ (Government of Western

Australia and Western Australian Planning Commission, 2006: item 6.3).

It started with an extensive exercise in public involvement called Dialogue with the City

(Government of Western Australia, 2004). This involved a number of events culminating

in a large interactive forum of 1100 participants in September 2003, with over a hundred of

these continuing to refine and focus the information emerging from the forum. Following

this, the community planning strategy for Perth and Peel was released for public comment

in 2004 (Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Department of Planning

and Infrastructure), mentioning the strategy had already been endorsed in principle by the

government and the WAPC. In response to the submissions received, a summary report

was issued in November 2005 (Government of Western Australia and Western Australian

Planning Commission, 2005) called Network City — A Milestone in Metropolitan

Planning. Finally, in March 2006, a draft Statement of Planning Policy called ‘Network

City’ was released (Government of Western Australia and WAPC). There has been

some criticism of the management of the process in terms of manipulation to serve the

interests and ideas of the government and its planners (Albrechts, 2006; Hopkins, 2007;

Maginn, 2007).

The WAPC, with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, is charged with the

process of implementing the first stages of the plan. Its spatial form is shown in a gener-

alized ‘Network City Framework’, a heavily annotated map showing activity centres,

networks, community strength and potential, and rural and resource areas and non-

development areas. A one-page ‘Network City Action Plan’ outlines the actions required

including the spatial plan and strategy.

The Commission has identified nine priority tasks (Government of Western Australia

and Western Australian Planning Commission, 2006) in developing the plan in detail.

They include articulating the metropolitan structure; determining local population,

housing and job targets by constructing appropriate methodologies collaboratively; and

developing the activity centres, activity corridors and transport corridors. The tasks are

driven by key WAPC committees.

While these earlier planning documents cited were short and general in nature, they

were followed by much more specific proposals in the June 2009 document Directions

2031 a Draft Spatial Plan for Perth and Peel put forward for public comment (Govern-

ment of Western Australia and WAPC). It shaped and pushed forward the process, out-

lining the same kinds of planning proposals contained in the other metropolitan

strategies. These included a long-term planning horizon with the consequent estimates

of population and necessary additions to dwelling stock allocated among six planning

sub-regions. It aimed for a distribution of jobs delivering ‘improved levels of employ-

ment self-sufficiency across all sub-regions’ (Government of Western Australia and

Western Australian Planning Commission, 2009:16). A ‘connected city’ was formed

around an activity centres network, a movement network and a green network. The

implementation section contained a long list of things to do — including an economic

strategy for Perth (sic).

This draft spatial framework accordingly continues the planning process in Perth

by bringing forward the ideas and themes discussed earlier into more concrete and familiar

forms.

246 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

4.2.5 Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (Government of South Australia,

2007b). A Labor Government came to power in 2002, and began a process of planning

to deal with the problems, particularly economic development, facing its small and some-

what isolated regional economy. A State Strategic Plan driven by the Premier was pro-

duced in 2004 and a revised and expanded version in 2007 (Government of South

Australia, 2004, 2007a). Among its most important targets was to achieve a population

of two million for the state by 2050, in contrast to its relatively slow population growth

of recent years. This Strategic Plan was partnered with an impressive Infrastructure Strat-

egy (Office for Infrastructure Development, South Australia, 2005).

As a consequence of these priorities, the metropolitan planning strategy (Government of

South Australia, 2007b) was caught between these other two strategies. It became a

holding operation providing some long-term directions and principles, together with

some reasonably firm short-term proposals. These are summarized in an ‘Adelaide Metro-

politan Spatial Framework’ which is to be read ‘as a conceptual representation of some of

the directions of the Planning Strategy and must be read in conjunction with the other maps

and the relevant sections of the strategy’ (Government of South Australia, 2007a,

2007b:26). It offers ‘a conceptual framework that has been designed to reflect the existing

urban structure and identify the common land-use patterns that will accommodate a range

of population projections, and the possible resultant housing, employment and service

needs’ (p. 25). No targets are set for population and urban growth in the Strategy, but

the well-established Residential Development Program continues its detailed short-term

forecasts of future dwelling growth by region and type.

In summary, the institutional circumstances in South Australia have resulted in a hybrid

metropolitan strategy with conceptual and schematic statements about the long term com-

bined with reasonable certainties about short-term growth, especially in residential devel-

opment. The Infrastructure Strategy provides the certainty needed to attract business

enterprises and property investment and acts as a framework for the state annual budget

spending on capital works.

In July 2009, a draft plan Planning the Adelaide We all Want (Department of Planning

& Local Government, South Australia, 2009) was released for public comment, filling the

gap in the metropolitan plan-making. It was based on an even higher level of population

growth than that required in the Strategic Plan, and includes an appendix showing its con-

tribution to its targets. In other respects, it is structured in a similar way to the revisions/elaborations of Melbourne, South East Queensland, and Perth.

4.2.6 Summary. Table 1 summarizes the metropolitan strategy formulations and con-

nections for the five cities in the 2002–2009 period. The judgments on connections rely

on a comparison of planning and budget documents over the years from the state govern-

ments involved, and apply to the revisions of the original metropolitan strategies. Different

state governments have different arrangements, and these can change over time. For

example, South East Queensland has a detailed annual infrastructure plan and programme,

also incorporated in the 2009 State Budget Paper 3 and a transport plan in preparation.

Victoria has a recent transport plan with detailed timeframes and costings incorporated

as Appendix E of 2009 State Budget Paper 3, at the same time as it has produced a revision

of Melbourne 2030. The new draft Adelaide plan makes much of the transit-oriented

development associated with the electrification of the suburban rail system in current

budgets.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

What the table does show is that the detailed set-piece strategies formulated for

Melbourne and Sydney, and to a lesser degree for South East Queensland required early

revision and change. Those for Perth and Adelaide were shaping strategies and holding

operations, respectively and required further development. However, all these draft

revisions largely take the familiar form of long-range planning; anticipated population

levels and jobs distributed in a future urban footprint; connecting movement systems;

articulation by activity centres of different size and character with denser concentrations

of jobs and residents in and around them; and open space systems of different kinds to

shape these patterns.

5. Conclusion

Australian metropolitan strategies over the years do have common and distinctive

characteristics. These might be summarized as set-piece representations of the city a

generation or so hence. They show land uses and communications arranged in a way

to reflect social, economic, and cultural objectives. Those produced in the 1948–1980

period were basically concerned with suburban expansion and paid relatively little atten-

tion to older established areas. They largely succeeded in their purposes of servicing

these areas of growth and change with the required infrastructure provided by state

instrumentalities.

The last two decades of the twentieth century showed metropolitan plans in transition,

reflecting new issues regarding economic competitiveness and sustainability paralleled

with privatization and outsourcing of much physical infrastructure and growing attention

to the renewal and intensification of existing urban areas.

From 2002, new metropolitan strategies were produced by the mainland states all

governed by Labor governments. Although informed and driven by these new circum-

stances, they tended to develop in more sophisticated and intricate forms the basic charac-

teristics of the older metropolitan plans. This is particularly the case with Sydney.

These distinctive characteristics largely reflect their status as state government

documents, dominated by the resources, roles and responsibilities of those governments.

Because state planning legislation involves close control and supervision of local govern-

ment planning operations, the metropolitan strategies contain a fair amount of detail.

Table 1. Australian metropolitan strategies and associated plans/programmes 2002–2009

City Metropolitan strategyRevisions/elaborations Strong connections

Melbourne Melbourne 2030(2002)

Melbourne @ 5million(Dec. 2008)

Victorian Transport Plan(Dec. 2008) State Budget

Sydney City of Cities (2005) Review to be carriedout

SE Queensland Regional Plan (2005) Draft Regional Plan(Nov. 2008)

Annual SEQ Infrastructure Planand Program State Budget

Perth Network City (2004) Draft Regional Plan(June 2009)

Local government throughWA Planning Commission

Adelaide Planning Strategy(2007)

Draft Regional Plan(July 2009)

State Strategic Plan (2007)State Budget

248 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

In facing these new issues and challenges in the twenty-first century, Australian metro-

politan strategies appear to have taken a different path to the developments in spatial plan-

ning taking place in Europe (Albrechts, 2004, 2006; Healey, 2004, 2006, 2007). While

carrying on many of the features of earlier strategies, they now need frequent replacement

and association with a changing spectrum of associated policies and programmes with

which they need to connect to be effective — in infrastructure, transport, water and

energy use and management and housing. This is particularly the case in infrastructure

and transportation (Powell, 2003, 2006; Dodson, 2009) and especially so when the infra-

structure needs arising from denser cities and rebuilding older areas become paramount

(Wilmoth, 2005).

References

Abercrombie, P. (1945) Greater London Plan (London: H.M.S.O).

Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (Spatial) planning re-examined, Environment & Planning B, 31(5), pp. 113–129.

Albrechts, L. (2006) Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia, Environment

and Planning A, 38, pp. 1149–1170.

Alexander, I. (1994) DURD revisited? Federal policy initiatives for urban and regional planning, Australian

Planner, 12, pp. 6–26.

Australian National Commission for UNESCO (1978) Urban Management Processes (Canberra: A.G.P.S).

Badcock, B. (1993) The urban programme as an instrument of crisis management in Australia, Australian

Planner, 11, pp. 72–80.

Beatley, T. & Newman, P. (2009) Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in

Australia (Washington, Covell, London: Island Press).

Bedford, E. (1980) Foreword in Review: Sydney Region Outline Plan (Sydney: Planning & Environment

Commission).

Birrell, B., O’Connor, K., Rapson, V. & Healey, E. (2005) Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric versus Urban

Reality (Melbourne: Monash University Press).

Butlin, N. (1982) Government and Capitalism: Public and Private Choice in Twentieth Century Australia

(Sydney: George Allen and Unwin).

Commonwealth Housing Commission (1944) Final Report (Canberra: Ministry of Post-war Reconstruction).

Crowley, K. & Coffey, B. (2007) New governance, green planning and sustainability: Tasmania together and

growing Victoria together, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(1), pp. 23–37.

Cumberland County Council (1948) County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Report (Sydney: Cumberland

County Council).

Department of Infrastructure, Victoria (2002) Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth (Melbourne:

Department of Infrastructure).

Department of Infrastructure & Planning, Queensland (2008)Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–

2031 (Brisbane: Department of Infrastructure & Planning).

Department of Planning, NSW (1994) Cities for the 21st Century (Sydney: Department of Planning).

Department of Planning, NSW (2005) City of Cities: a Plan for Sydney’s Future (Sydney: Department of

Planning).

Department of Planning & Community Development, Victoria (2008) Melbourne 2030: A Planning Update

Melbourne @ 5 Million (Melbourne: Department of Planning & Community Development).

Department of Planning & Local Government, South Australia (2009) Planning the Adelaide We all Want

(Adelaide: Department of Planning & Local Government).

Department of Premier & Cabinet, South Australia (1994) Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide

(Adelaide: Department of Premier & Cabinet).

Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria (2001, revised 2005) Growing Victoria Together (Melbourne:

Government of Victoria).

Department of Transport, Victoria (2008) The Victorian Transport Plan (Melbourne: Department of Transport).

Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, NSW (1998) Shaping Our Cities (Sydney: Department of Urban

Affairs & Planning).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dodson, J. (2009) The ‘Infrastructure Turn’ in Australian Metropolitan Spatial Planning, International Planning

Studies, 14(2), pp. 109–123.

Forster, C. (2004) Australian Cities; Continuity and Change, 3rd edn. (Melbourne: Oxford University

Press).

Forster, C. (2006) The challenge of change: Australia’s cities and urban planning in the new millennium,

Geographical Research, 44(2), pp. 173–182.

Forster, C. & McCaskill, M. (2007) The modern period: managing metropolitan Adelaide, in A. Hutchings (Ed.)

With Conscious Purpose: A History of Town Planning in South Australia, 2nd ed., pp. 85–108b (Adelaide:

Planning Institute of South Australia).

Glazebrook, G. & Rickwood, P. (2008) Options for reducing transport and fuel consumption and greenhouse

emissions for Sydney, Built Environment, 34(3), pp. 349–363.

Gleeson, B. (2001) Devolution and state planning systems in Australia, International Planning Studies, 6(2),

pp. 133–152.

Gleeson, B. (2006) Towards a new Australian suburbanism, Australian Planner, 43(1), pp. 10–13.

Gleeson, B., Darbas, T. & Lawson, S. (2004) Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan

strategies: A socio-theoretic analysis, Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 345–366.

Gleeson, B. & Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas (Sydney: Allen and

Unwin).

Government of South Australia (2004) South Australia’s Strategic Plan (Adelaide: Government of South

Australia).

Government of South Australia (2007a) South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007 (Adelaide: Government of South

Australia).

Government of South Australia (2007b) Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (Adelaide: Government of

South Australia).

Government of Western Australia (2004) Dialogue with the City: Final Report of Proceedings (Perth: Govern-

ment of Western Australia).

Government of Western Australia and Western Australian Planning Commission (2005) Network City: A

Milestone in Metropolitan Planning (Perth: Government of Western Australia).

Government of Western Australia and Western Australian Planning Commission (2006) Statement of Planning

Policy: Network City (Draft) (Perth: Government of Western Australia and WAPC).

Government of Western Australia and Western Australian Planning Commission (2009) Directions 2031 (Perth:

Government of Western Australia and WAPC).

Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and

the Urban Condition (London and New York: Routledge).

Hamnett, S. (2000) The late 1990s: Competitive versus sustainable cities, in S. Hamnett & R. Freestone (Eds) The

Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, pp. 168–188 (Sydney: Allen & Unwin).

Hamnett, S. & Freestone, R. (Eds) (2000) The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History (Sydney: Allen &

Unwin).

Healey, P. (2004) The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe, International

Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 28(1), pp. 45–67.

Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space,

European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 299–319.

Healey, P. (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for our Times

(Abingdon & New York: Routledge).

Holliday, S. (2000) The higher density debate, New Planner, 42, p. 6&15.

Holliday, S. & Norton, R. (1995) Sydney’s future: Quo Vadis? Urban Futures, 17, pp. 13–19.

Hopkins, D. (2007) Multiple dialogues and conflicting agendas in governing the city: Western Australia’s

‘Dialogue with the city’. Proceedings of the 3rd State of Australian Cities Conference, City Structure

Section, Adelaide, SOAC.

Iemma,M. (2006)Urban Transport Statement, by the Premier of New SouthWales (Sydney: Premier’s Office, 20

November).

Kelly, P. (1992) The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s (Sydney: Allen & Unwin).

Lennon, M. (2000) The revival of metropolitan planning, in S. Hamnett & R. Freestone (Eds) The Australian

Metropolis: A Planning History, pp. 149–167 (Sydney: Allen & Unwin).

Lewis, M. (1999) Suburban Backlash: The Battle for the World’s Most Livable City (Melbourne: Blooming

Books).

250 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lloyd, C. & Troy, P. (1981) Innovation and Reaction: The Life and Death of the Federal Department of Urban

and Regional Development (Sydney: Allen and Unwin).

Madanipour, A., Hull, A. & Healey, P. (Eds) (2001) The Governance of Place (Aldershot and Burlington:

Ashgate).

Maginn, P. (2007) Deliberative democracy or discursively biased?: Perth’s dialogue with the city initiative, Space

and Polity, 11(3), pp. 331–352.

McLoughlin, B. (1969) Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach (London: Faber & Faber).

McNabb, P. & Associates, University of Melbourne Research Team (2001) Activity Centres Review, Technical

Report 8 of Melbourne 2030.

Mees, P. (2003) Paterson’s curse: The attempt to revive metropolitan planning in Melbourne, Urban Policy &

Research, 21(3), pp. 287–299.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (1954) Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (Melbourne:

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works).

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (1971) Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region

(Melbourne: Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works).

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (1980) Metropolitan Strategy (Melbourne: Melbourne and

Metropolitan Board of Works).

Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority, Western Australia (1962)Metropolitan Region Scheme Report (Perth:

Town Planning Department).

Morison, I. (2000) The Corridor City: planning for growth in the 1960s, in S. Hamnett & R. Freestone (Eds) The

Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, pp. 98–130 (Sydney: Allen & Unwin).

Neutze, M. (1977) Urban Development in Australia (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin).

Neutze, M. (1978) Australian Urban Policy (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin).

Neutze, M. (1982) Urban planning, policy and management, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 41,

pp. 145–158.

Neutze, M. (1988) Planning as urban management: A critical assessment, in J. Mant (Ed.) The Instruments of

Planning: Urban Management, Urban Research Unit Working Paper 6 (Canberra: Australian National Uni-

versity, Research School of Social Sciences).

Newman, P. (1992) The compact city: An Australian perspective, Built Environment, 18(4), pp. 285–300.

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook

(Aldershot: Gower Technical).

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1992)Winning Back the Cities (Sydney: Australian Consumers’ Association/PlutoPress).

O’Connor, K. (2003) Melbourne 2030: A response, Urban Policy & Research, 21(2), pp. 211–215.

Office for Infrastructure Development, South Australia (2005) The Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Aus-

tralia 2005/6-2014/15 (Adelaide: Government of South Australia).

Office of Financial Management, NSW Treasury (2006) State Infrastructure Strategy, 2006/07-2015/16(Sydney: Office of Financial Management).

Office of Urban Management, Queensland (2005) South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 (Brisbane:

Office of Urban Management).

Orchard, L. (1999) Shifting visions in national urban and regional policy 2, Australian Planner, 36, pp. 200–209.

Powell, T. (2003) Real town planning, Urban Policy & Research, 21(1), pp. 113–119.

Powell, T. (2006) Return to real town planning, Australian Planner, 43(1), pp. 14–15.

Randolph, B. (2004) The changing Australian city: New patterns, new policies and new research needs, Urban

Policy & Research, 22(4), pp. 481–493.

Randolph, B. & Holloway, D. (2005) Social disadvantage, tenure and location: An analysis of Sydney and

Melbourne, Urban Policy & Research, 23(2), pp. 173–201.

Richardson, T. & Jensen, O. (2003) Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in

analysing spatial policy discourses, Urban Studies, 40(1), pp. 7–22.

Rickwood, P., Glazebrook, G. & Searle, G. (2008) Urban structure and energy; a review, Urban Policy &

Research, 26(1), pp. 57–81.

Rickwood, P. & Glazebrook, G. (2009) Urban structure and commuting in Australian cities, Urban Policy &

Research, 27(2), pp. 171–188.

Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal (1969) 3&4.

Salet, W., Thornley, A. & Kreukels, A. (Eds) (2003)Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Compara-

tive Studies of European City-Regions (London: E and F.N. Spon).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sanyal, B. (Ed.) (2005) Comparative Planning Cultures (New York & London: Routledge).

Searle, G. (2004) Sydney’s recent metropolitan strategies, Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 367–391.

SGS (Spiller, Gibbins, Swan) (2000) Globalisation, Competitiveness and Metropolitan Strategy, Technical

Report 3 of Melbourne 2030.

SGS Economics & Planning (2004) Sydney’s Economic Geography – Trends and Drivers, Report produced

for the then Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, NSW, as an input into the

preparation of City of Cities, the Sydney metropolitan strategy.

State Planning Authority of New South Wales (1968) Sydney Region Outline Plan (Sydney: State Planning

Authority).

Stephenson, G. & Hepburn, A. (1955) Plan for the Metropolitan Region: Perth and Fremantle (Perth:

Government Printing Office).

Stilwell, F. (1974) Australian Urban and Regional Development (Sydney: Australian & New Zealand Book Co).

Stilwell, F. (1993) Reshaping Australia: Urban Problems and Policies (Sydney: Pluto Press).

Stilwell, F. & Troy, P. (2000) Multi-level governance and urban development in Australia, Urban Studies, 37,

pp. 909–930.

Thompson, S. (Ed.) (2007) Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and Regional Planning (Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press).

Town Planning Committee of South Australia (1962) Report on the Metropolitan Area of Adelaide (Adelaide:

Government Printer).

Treasurer of NSW (2008) Half-Yearly Review (the Mini-Budget) (Sydney: Treasury of NSW).

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1978) Federal Power in Australia’s Cities: Essays in Honour of Peter Till (Sydney: Hale and

Ironmonger).

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1981) Equity in the City (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin).

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1995) Australian Cities: Issues, Strategies and Policies for Urban Australia in the 1990s (Cam-

bridge UK, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press).

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1999) Serving the City: The Crisis in Australia’s Urban Services (Sydney: Pluto Press).

Troy, P. (Ed.) (2008) Troubled Waters: Confronting the Water Crisis in Australia’s Cities (Canberra: Australian

National University Press).

Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Planning and Infrastructure (2004) Network City:

Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel (Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission and

Department of Planning and Infrastructure).

Wilmoth, D. (2005) Urban infrastructure and metropolitan planning: Connection and disconnection. Proceedings

of the 2nd State of Australian Cities Conference, City Structure Section, Brisbane, Urban Research Program,

Griffith University.

Winston, D. (1957) Sydney’s Great Experiment: The Progress of the Cumberland County Plan (Sydney: Angus &

Robertson).

252 R. Bunker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Situating Australian Metropolitan Planning