Friday, May 11, 2007

The Phenomenon of ‘Urban Splatter’

Transect
Synthetic polymer paint on linen
75.5cm x 100.5cm
Sue Beyer

‘Urban Splatter’ is a term representing the pattern of urban development that results from the actions of a variety of developers creating individual Greenfield subdivisions on multiple unrelated development fronts, which leave tracts of undeveloped land between subdivisions, even within individual development fronts. It is a product of market-driven approaches to the urbanisation of land on the fringes of cities in developed nations and is especially prevalent in jurisdictions where there is a lack of a strong co-ordinating framework, both at the metropolitan level (where numerous development fronts may be active simultaneously) and at the local/sub-regional structure planning level, where a ‘patchwork quilt’ effect of developed and undeveloped parcels can result from the development decisions of individual landholders.

It is important to note that urban splatter can still result within cities that have a relatively strong metropolitan or sub-regional structure planning framework if decisions on the development of land parcels within Greenfield development fronts are not sufficiently coordinated. This is the most visible representation of urban splatter as one passing through such areas is confronted by a mosaic of developed housing estates and land that is dormant, still under agricultural use or (increasingly) in large lot residential use.

Although related and to the more widely used term urban sprawl an extent interchangeable with it, the key distinction between the two is that the latter results in a fairly continuous fabric of developed land with few breaks in the urban pattern, which forms the outcome of deliberate policy directions regarding Greenfield residential development, wheras the former is more reflective of individual market decisions.

Both urban sprawl and urban splatter outcomes can be seen in the land release strategies employed by various State Governments in Australia (such as New South Wales), where consolidated precincts of land are ‘released’ by the relevant Minister as a precursor to any rezoning action by the relevant local government or development authority. Similar programs are also found in Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and, belatedly, Queensland (however there are important distinctions regarding the Queensland situation which I will discuss further below).

The sequential nature of land release programs such as the New South Wales Metropolitan Development Program generally ensure that isolated precincts of land are not developed for Greenfield residential subdivisions in advance of trunk infrastructure, producing a relatively continuous urban sprawl at the edges of Sydney at the metropolitan level. However, at the local level within the individual land release precincts, the urban splatter phenomenon can still be observed through the actions of individual developers, who assemble land parcels for development according to their success in identifying sites considered ‘prime’ for development and their ability to secure options for purchase with individual land owners.

This can lead to ‘cherry picking’ of land parcels (which are increasingly in fragmented, multiple ownerships on the fringes of Sydney, where relatively few large landholdings remain outside the existing development area), often as an unintended consequence of localised structure planning, due to developers avoiding purchase of lots with significant designations for open space or environmental purposes, so as to maximise their individual development yields. This can lead to isolated pockets of relatively unattractive land remaining undeveloped due to their high community infrastructure burden, leading to both late delivery of services and an urban splatter land use pattern that can persist for significant periods. The other consequence of these actions is on the cash flow of the infrastructure delivery agency (usually local Councils), who must wait to fully recoup their outlay, incurring interest charges in the meantime that place an increased debt burden on other ratepayers.

The regulatory framework in Queensland has particularly led itself to urban splatter outcomes on the fringes of developing areas as until the adoption of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 in 2005, there was no centralised regulation of the release of Greenfield land in the Greater Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Toowoomba metropolitan areas. Although there as been some form of control in terms of the strategic frameworks contained in Local Government Planning Schemes and their expression in the zoning patterns (by manner of zones such as “Future Urban” or “Non Urban”, and their Integrated Planning Act equivalents), provisions to apply for rezoning (or latterly, for Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning Scheme under s.3.1.6 of the Integrated Planning and Assessment Act, 1997(IPA)) to bring forward the development of individual parcels or even entire precincts outside the development sequence expressed in the planning instruments relevant at the time.

In the past this was further compounded by a cultural patronage at the State Government level by widespread usage of Ministerial discretion to rezone land, whatever the view of the local authority on the matter. The consideration of rezoning applications from a ‘de novo’ perspectives by the Land and Environment Court has also tended to favour the party seeking development as it has often proved difficult for Councils to demonstrate that land was incapable of development or premature within the legislative or policy framework available to them at the time, where there was no strong tools available to sequence development (especially in the context of the 'no prohibition' land-use framework established by the IPA).

One of the most obvious expressions of this policy framework (or more specifically it’s non-expression) is the development of the suburb of Bellbowrie, which remains physically isolated from other urban areas in Brisbane some 30 years after it was first developed. At a more common level, developers today often seek to use the Preliminary Approval powers in the IPA to bring forward development of their parcels in advance of detailed planning by the local government authority.

Injudicious use of this power can exacerbate urban splatter, however it can also be used as a lever to trigger comprehensive structure planning of a precinct with funding from the development industry, under the supervision of the relevant authorities. This is proving valuable in the context of Councils that lack sufficient strategic planning resources to address all areas requiring structure planning within a market-responsive timeframe. A process such as this can now be successful in SEQ due to the context created by the SEQ Regional Plan, with the Urban footprint effectively limiting the outer reach of urban development, and the requirements for Local Growth Management Strategies (and their designation of Major Development Areas and Master Planning Areas), Priority Infrastructure Plans and the Benchmark Development Sequences contained within these documents providing the requisite discipline to ensure that out-of-sequence development is either strongly discouraged or at least carries the full cost of the additional servicing costs. However, as in NSW, the sequencing of individual developments within staged development land areas is still largely reactive to the market and developer’s ability to secure suitable stocks of land for development.

The challenge remains to ensure that the results at the local level of individual developments do not function in a counter productive manner to the intent of precinct structure plans and the wider regional outcomes (especially in relation to matters such as the integration of land use and transport). For it is the early, effective delivery of public transport to Greenfield areas in a form (and frequency) that encourages transit use in lieu of reliance on a second (or third, fourth, fifth, etc.) motor vehicle to address daily transport needs. This becomes next to impossible in urban splatter situations, due to the inability of the service providerto construct viable routes with partially constructed collector street systems and fragmented passenger catchments.

Un-coordinated development in a precinct by multiple actors also struggles to deliver housing choice and higher than lowest-market-common-denominator product or so called 'premium (McMansion/Waterfront/Golf Course estates) products and stand-alone retail centres, all of which work against delivering sustainable transport options and the establishment of a desirable community focal point as a unifying features. In fact many subdivision designs deliberately work against these principles in the quest to secure a market advantage over their competitors. This can often lead to each landholder trying to attract high-value retail and commercial uses to their holdings, contributing to retail oversupply and often to court action between developers in winner-takes all battles, to the detriment to securing the optimal planning outcome for the future residents of the area.

The wider costs of urban splatter to the community include the increased loss of ecosystems from the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and the increased exposure to edge effects degrading bushland on the fringe; the air pollution and global warming effects of increased vehicular kilometres travelled by new residents;the costs of under-utilised infrastructure, both (construction and maintenance) borne by the taxpayer, particularly the dilution of public sector spending leading to an increased portion of tax money being spent on the management of numerous, simultaneous projects; the spread of population growth straining the provision of human services, as service provision thresholds are reached later than in more targeted land release programs, leading to a decline in access to services.

In order to counter the effects of urban splatter, new release areas need to be of a scale to support:
  • the efficient delivery of the full range of human services;
  • retail, commercial and service trade employment opportunities to increase employment self containment;
  • a compact, consolidated urban precinct designed at a walkable scale that also reduce edge effect exposure at the urban boundary.
Within the new urban area, however, some degree of relaxation on matters such as vegetation retention and waterway setbacks and all of the other various single-issue policy considerations (such as acoustic mitigation and traffic management) may be required to ensure appropriate urban outcomes within the defined urbanprecinct. This means that care should be taken at the structure planning stage to avoid potential major environmental conflicts by placing major waterway corridors at the periphery of urban units, and locating neighbourhood focal points in the centre of the defined urban precincts, preferably on elevated (though not steep) sites so that they can serve the traditional high street function (both physically and conceptually).

The key matters to be addressed in order to achieve these outcomes are:
  • applying the right mix of policy settings in the relevant development code to achieve proper integration of land uses and built form ;
  • local coordination (whether formalised or in a cooperative sense) to ensure that development is achieved sequentially and logically within each individual precinct, and
  • that developer opportunism and holding out by individual owners does not disrupt the optimal development program.
This can be difficult to achieve within the system of property rights and expectations commonly found within Australian legal systems, where the power of planning authorities is often limited in the ability to purchase hold-outs or counter pre-emptive development applications once a precinct is released. In particular, the legal structures around just compensation for compulsory land acquisition is long-winded and expensive within most jurisdictions, leading to a reluctance of planning authorities to exercise powers that they have, due to the potential drain on scarce public resources, delays to the release of land and political friction caused by displacement of existing residents.

Greater co-operation between landowners, developers and planning authorities therefore offers the best solution to dealing with the challenges of urban splatter at the local scale. This means using inclusive techniques such as enquiry by design workshops and intensive (and early) stakeholder consultation, with a strong emphasis on common benefits and an end vision to focus participants and create momentum towards securing integrated planning outcomes. A delicate balancing act is required at the local structure planning stage to ensure that planning goals are are achieved without creating a distinct group of 'winners' and 'losers' within the precicnt landowners.

Although it remains an entrenched and pervasive form of urban fringe development, the negative effects of this development form can be countered, however it requires active intervention on the behalf of planning authorities, a willingness to compromise across single-issue jurisdictions to achieve common planning goals that emphasise place, and close and continual liaison with the relevant stakeholders throughout the development of both individual neighbourhood precincts and sub-regional masterplanned urban communities.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Very interesting :-)