View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING IN
QUEENSLAND UNDER THE INTEGRATED
PLANNING ACT 1997: AN EVALUATION OF
PERCEPTIONS AND PLANNING SCHEMES
Travis Graeme Frew
MURP, BSc
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
December 2011
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. i
Keywords
Certainty, Effects Based Planning, Flexibility, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Land Use,
Performance Adoption Spectrum, Performance Based Planning, Performance Measurement,
Performance Standards, Plan Performativity, Procedural Performance, Performance Zoning,
Queensland, Substantive Performance, Urban and Regional Planning, Zoning.
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. ii
Abstract
Performance based planning is a form of planning regulation that is not well
understood and the theoretical advantages of this type of planning are rarely achieved in
practice. Normatively, this type of regulation relies on performance standards that are
quantifiable and technically based which are designed to manage the effects of development,
where performance standards provide certainty in respect of the level of performance and
the means of achievement is flexible.
Few empirical studies have attempted to examine how performance based planning
has been conceptualised and implemented in practice. Existing literature is predominately
anecdotal and consultant based (Baker et al. 2006) and has not sought to quantitatively
examine how land use has been managed or determine how context influences
implementation.
The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) operated as Queensland’s principal planning
legislation between March 1998 and December 2009. The IPA prevented Local
Governments from prohibiting development or use and the term zone was absent from the
legislation. While the IPA did not use the term performance based planning, the system is
widely considered to be performance based in practice (e.g. Baker et al. 2006; Steele 2009a,
2009b). However, the degree to which the IPA and the planning system in Queensland is
performance based is debated (e.g. Yearbury 1998; England 2004).
Four research questions guided the research framework using Queensland as the case
study. The questions sought to: determine if there is a common understanding of
performance based planning; identify how performance based planning was expressed under
the IPA; understand how performance based planning was implemented in plans; and
explore the experiences of participants in the planning system.
The research developed a performance adoption spectrum. The spectrum describes
how performance based planning is implemented, ranging between pure and hybrid
interpretations. An ex-post evaluation of seventeen IPA plans sought to determine plan
performativity within the conceptual spectrum. Land use was examined from the procedural
dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and the substantive dimension of
performance (Codes). A documentary analysis and forty one interviews supplemented the
research. The analytical framework considered how context influenced performance based
planning, including whether: the location of the local government affected land use
management techniques; temporal variation in implementation exists; plan-making
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. iii
guidelines affected implementation; different perceptions of the concept exist; this type of
planning applies to a range of spatial scales.
Outcomes were viewed as the medium for determining the acceptability of
development in Queensland, a significant departure from pure approaches found in the
United States. Interviews highlighted the absence of plan-making direction in the IPA, which
contributed to the confusion about the intended direction of the planning system and the
myth that the IPA would guarantee a performance based system. A hybridised form of
performance based planning evolved in Queensland which was dependent on prescriptive
land use zones and specification of land use type, with some local governments going to
extreme lengths to discourage certain activities in a predetermined manner. Context had
varying degrees of influence on plan-making methods. Decision-making was found to be
inconsistent and the system created a range of unforeseen consequences including difficulties
associated with land valuation, increased development speculation, and the role of planners
in court was found to be less critical than in the previous planning system.
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. iv
Table of Contents
Keywords……………………………………………………………………………………………..i
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………iv
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..xi
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………..xii
List of Planning Scheme Extracts…………………………………………………………………xiv
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………xv
Statement of Authorship…………………………………………………………………………...xvii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….xviii
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 AUTHOR’S INTEREST IN RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 3
1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 4
1.4 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 6
1.5 THESIS OUTLINE ......................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 – PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING ................................................... 9
2.1 PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING DESCRIPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................. 9
2.1.1 The Benefits of Performance Based Approaches: Theory versus Practice .................... 14
2.1.2 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 ORIGINS AND DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING APPROACHES ............................ 16
2.2.1 A Reaction to Prescriptive Regulations .......................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Performance Standards .................................................................................................. 17
2.2.3 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Reform Agendas ............................................................................................................. 20
2.2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION IN PRACTICE .......................................................................... 21
2.3.1 United States .................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.2 New Zealand ................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Queensland, Australia .................................................................................................... 25
2.3.4 Hybridised Implementation – The Mixing of Planning Methods .................................... 25
2.3.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 26
2.4 RESEARCH DEFINITION ............................................................................................................. 27
2.5 PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING LITERATURE IN NORTH AMERICA, NEW ZEALAND
AND AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................................ 30
2.5.1 Performance Based Planning in North America ............................................................ 30
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. v
2.5.1.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 31
2.5.1.2 Non-Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 36
2.5.1.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 42
2.5.2 Performance Based Planning in New Zealand .............................................................. 43
2.5.2.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 43
2.5.2.2 Non Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 48
2.5.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 50
2.5.3 Performance Based Planning in Australia .................................................................... 50
2.5.3.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 50
2.5.3.2 Non-Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 58
2.5.3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 65
2.5.4 Research Gap ................................................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER 3 – METHODS .................................................................................................. 68
3.1 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES, QUESTIONS, AND SCOPE .................................................................. 68
3.1.1 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 68
3.1.2 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 69
3.1.2.1 A summary of the Methods of Analysis ................................................................................. 71
3.1.3 Research Contributions ................................................................................................. 73
3.1.4 Scope of Research .......................................................................................................... 73
3.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................................... 74
3.2.1 The Performance Adoption Spectrum ............................................................................ 74
3.2.2 Performance Primacy .................................................................................................... 75
3.2.3 Performativity Dimensions ............................................................................................ 76
3.2.4 Spatial Performance ...................................................................................................... 79
3.2.5 Planning Issues and Evaluation .................................................................................... 80
3.2.6 Contextual Variables/ Influences of Performance ......................................................... 81
3.2.7 Analytical Framework Diagram .................................................................................... 82
3.3 METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 84
3.3.1 Case Study Design ......................................................................................................... 84
3.3.2 Documentary Analysis (Non-Planning Scheme) ............................................................ 85
3.3.3 Interview Methods ......................................................................................................... 86
3.3.3.1 Interviews and the Analytical Framework .............................................................................. 87
3.3.3.2 Participant Selection ............................................................................................................... 88
3.3.3.3 Pilot Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 89
3.3.3.4 Interview Process and Questions ............................................................................................ 90
3.3.3.5 Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 93
3.3.4 Planning Scheme Evaluation Methods .......................................................................... 94
3.3.4.1 Planning Scheme Evaluation and the Analytical Framework ................................................. 94
3.3.4.2 Planning Scheme Selection Process ....................................................................................... 96
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. vi
3.3.4.3 Determining Planning Scheme Performativity...................................................................... 101
3.3.4.4 Structuring the Planning Scheme Evaluation ........................................................................ 102
3.3.4.5 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................ 105
3.3.4.6 Refinements to the Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................. 109
3.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 111
CHAPTER 4 – THE INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997: BEGINNINGS,
KEY ELEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ...................................................................... 113
4.1 URBAN LAND USE PLANNING IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................... 115
4.2 PRE-IPA PLANNING SYSTEM IN QUEENSLAND ....................................................................... 116
4.2.1 Pre-IPA 1997 Planning Schemes ................................................................................. 117
4.3 PRE-IPA 1997 REFORM ISSUES AND DRIVERS ........................................................................ 117
4.3.1 Micro-Economic Reform and ESD ............................................................................... 118
4.3.2 Is it too Complex? & New Planning and Development Legislation Discussion
Papers ...................................................................................................................................... 118
4.3.3 Planning, Environment and Development Assessment Bill (PEDA) ............................ 120
4.3.4 The Integrated Planning Bill 1997 ............................................................................... 120
4.4 THE INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 ................................................................................. 120
4.4.1 Key IPA Concepts ......................................................................................................... 121
4.4.1.1 The Purpose of IPA and Advancing the Purpose .................................................................. 121
4.4.1.2 The Concept of “Development” ............................................................................................ 122
4.4.2 Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) .................................................... 123
4.4.2.1 IDAS Assessment Categories ............................................................................................... 124
4.4.2.2 Types of Approvals under IDAS .......................................................................................... 126
4.4.2.3 IDAS Decision-making Rules ............................................................................................... 128
4.4.3 Planning Instruments ................................................................................................... 129
4.4.3.1 Key Elements of Planning Schemes ..................................................................................... 129
4.4.3.2 Core Matters for Planning Schemes ...................................................................................... 130
4.4.3.3 Other Key Directions of Planning Schemes .......................................................................... 130
4.4.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 131
4.5 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE IPA (1998-2006) ........................................................... 132
4.5.1 Legislative Bills ............................................................................................................ 133
4.5.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 135
4.6 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING BILL 2009 ...................................................................................... 136
4.7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 137
CHAPTER 5 – PERCEPTIONS & INTERPRETATIONS OF PERFORMANCE
BASED PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 139
5.1 IS THERE A RANGE OF INTERPRETATIONS OF PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING? .................. 139
5.1.1 What is Performance Based Planning? ........................................................................ 140
5.1.1.1 Is Performance Based Planning the Correct Term? .............................................................. 140
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. vii
5.1.1.2 What Performance Based Planning Is Not ............................................................................ 141
5.1.1.3 Outcomes, Impacts and Effects ............................................................................................ 141
5.1.1.4 Other Views .......................................................................................................................... 144
5.1.2 What is the Purpose and Function of Performance Based Planning? ......................... 145
5.1.2.1 Flexibility ............................................................................................................................. 145
5.1.2.2 Certainty ............................................................................................................................... 146
5.1.2.3 Other Views .......................................................................................................................... 146
5.1.3 Is Performance Based Planning Suitable at all Spatial Scales? .................................. 147
5.1.3.1 The ‘Ideal’ Spatial Reach of Performance Based Planning .................................................. 147
5.1.3.2 Is Decision-Making Performance Based at Broad Spatial Scales? ....................................... 148
5.1.3.3 Is there a Spatial ‘Comfort Zone’ in Performance Based Planning? ..................................... 150
5.1.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 152
5.2 HOW HAS PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING BEEN CONCEPTUALISED UNDER THE IPA
1997? ................................................................................................................................. 156
5.2.1 Legislation versus Implementation .............................................................................. 157
5.2.2 Performance Based Planning and Connectivity with Chapters of IPA 1997 ............... 158
5.2.2.1 Chapter 1 (Purpose and ESD) ............................................................................................... 158
5.2.2.2 Chapter 2 (Planning) ............................................................................................................. 159
5.2.2.3 Chapter 3 (IDAS) ................................................................................................................. 160
5.2.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 161
5.3 HOW HAS PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING BEEN CONCEPTUALISED IN IPA PLANS? ........... 163
5.3.1 Standard Plan Components ......................................................................................... 163
5.3.1.1 Desired Environmental Outcomes ........................................................................................ 164
5.3.1.2 Codes .................................................................................................................................... 166
5.3.1.3 Assessment Tables................................................................................................................ 169
5.3.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 170
CHAPTER 6 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED PLANNING
ACT 1997 ............................................................................................................................. 173
6.1 EARLY IPA PLANNING SCHEMES ........................................................................................... 174
6.2 PLAN-MAKING GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................... 175
6.2.1 Plan-making Guidelines - 1999 ................................................................................... 176
6.2.2 Plan-making Guidelines - 2000 ................................................................................... 178
6.2.3 Plan-making Guideline - 2002 ..................................................................................... 180
6.2.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 185
6.3 THE IMPACT OF THE IPA 1997 PLAN-MAKING GUIDELINES .................................................. 188
6.3.1 Why were Plan-Making Guidelines needed? ............................................................... 189
6.3.2 Conceptual Debates and Plan-Making Guideline Responses ...................................... 190
6.3.2.1 Inconsistent and Consistent Uses .......................................................................................... 190
6.3.2.2 Role of Code Assessment ..................................................................................................... 193
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. viii
6.3.2.3 Tables of Development ......................................................................................................... 194
6.3.2.4 Weakened Strategic Planning Elements ................................................................................ 194
6.3.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 195
6.4 IPA REFORM POST 2005 ......................................................................................................... 197
6.4.1 Dynamic Planning for a Growing State Discussion Paper (2006)............................... 199
6.4.1.1 Local Government Planning Policy ...................................................................................... 199
6.4.1.2 Integrated Development Assessment System ....................................................................... 200
6.4.1.3 Interpretations and Perceptions of Performance Based Planning .......................................... 201
6.4.1.4 Dynamic Planning for a Growing State Public Consultation ................................................ 201
6.4.1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 202
6.4.2 Planning for a Prosperous Queensland (2007) ............................................................ 203
6.4.2.1 Standard Planning Scheme Provisions .................................................................................. 203
6.4.2.2 Decision-making Processes .................................................................................................. 204
6.4.2.3 Interpretations and Perceptions of Performance Based Planning .......................................... 205
6.4.2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 206
6.4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 207
CHAPTER 7 – MANAGING LAND USE IN PLANNING SCHEMES ....................... 209
7.1 PROCEDURAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 209
7.1.1 Procedural Typologies ................................................................................................. 210
7.1.1.1 Basic Assessment Categories ................................................................................................ 210
7.1.1.2 Modified Assessment Categories .......................................................................................... 212
7.1.1.3 Procedural Assessment Table Criteria Summary Findings ................................................... 221
7.1.2 Procedural Contextual Tests ........................................................................................ 223
7.1.2.1 Basic Assessment Levels Only ............................................................................................. 224
7.1.2.2 Modified Assessment Levels ................................................................................................ 225
7.1.2.3 Procedural Contextual Summary Findings ........................................................................... 226
7.2 SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ 227
7.2.1 Substantive Typologies ................................................................................................. 228
7.2.1.1 No Substantive Land Use Criteria ........................................................................................ 228
7.2.1.2 Negative Land Use Criteria .................................................................................................. 228
7.2.1.3 Positive Land Use Criteria .................................................................................................... 236
7.2.1.4 Mixed Land Use Criteria ...................................................................................................... 243
7.2.1.5 Impact of Positive and Negative Criteria Combined ............................................................. 248
7.2.1.6 Substantive Code Criteria Summary Findings ...................................................................... 250
7.2.2 Substantive Contextual Tests ........................................................................................ 253
7.2.2.1 No Land Use Criteria in Codes ............................................................................................. 253
7.2.2.2 Direct (Negative with No Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes ....................................... 254
7.2.2.3 Direct (Positive with No Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes ........................................ 256
7.2.2.4 Mixed (Positive with Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes .............................................. 257
7.2.2.5 Substantive Context Summary Findings ............................................................................... 258
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. ix
7.3 PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE COMBINED ............................................... 259
7.4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 262
7.4.1 Performance Adoption Spectrum/ Comparisons with Literature ................................. 264
7.4.2 Political Decisions and IPA ......................................................................................... 265
7.4.3 Historical Context ........................................................................................................ 267
7.4.4 Practical Implementation Responses ........................................................................... 268
7.4.4.1 Plan-making Variation .......................................................................................................... 269
7.4.4.2 Plan-making Guidance following the IPA’s Commencement .............................................. 270
7.4.4.3 Proscriptive ‘Alarm Bells’ .................................................................................................... 271
7.4.5 Perceived Risk ............................................................................................................. 272
7.4.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 272
CHAPTER 8 – EXPERIENCES IN PRACTICE ............................................................ 274
8.1 PLAN-MAKING EXPERIENCES ................................................................................................ 274
8.1.1 Flexibility and Certainty - Where Do You Draw the Line? ......................................... 274
8.1.2 Bullet Proofing ............................................................................................................ 276
8.1.3 Vertical Integration ..................................................................................................... 277
8.1.4 Temporal Changes in Expression in the IPA Plans ..................................................... 278
8.1.5 Reductionist Drafting Techniques ............................................................................... 280
8.2 DECISION-MAKING EXPERIENCES.......................................................................................... 282
8.2.1 Inflexible and Inconsistent Decision-Making .............................................................. 282
8.2.2 Spatial Context – Differences of Opinion .................................................................... 287
8.2.3 Site Size and Flexible Decision-Making ...................................................................... 289
8.2.4 Local Government versus State Government ............................................................... 291
8.3 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................... 292
8.3.1 Disincentives for Making Performance Based Applications ....................................... 292
8.3.2 The Role of Planners in Court ..................................................................................... 293
8.3.3 Development Speculation ............................................................................................ 294
8.3.4 Land Valuation ............................................................................................................ 295
8.4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 295
CHAPTER 9 – CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 302
9.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 303
9.1.1 Revisiting the Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 317
9.1.2 What is Performance Based Planning in Queensland? ............................................... 320
9.2 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 321
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 323
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 328
Appendix A (Chapter 3 Appendices A.1-A.12)… ………………………………………………..344
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. x
Appendix B (Chapter 4 Appendices B.1-B.15)…………………………………………………..394
Appendix C (Chapter 5 Appendices C.1-C.2)……..………………………………………………418
Appendix D (Chapter 6 Appendices D.1-D.38)....…………………………………………………423
Appendix E (Chapter 7 Appendices E.1-E.2)……………………………………………………...474
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xi
List of Figures
FIGURE 2.1 – THE PERFORMANCE ADOPTION SPECTRUM. ................................................................................ 28
FIGURE 3.1 – THE PERFORMANCE ADOPTION SPECTRUM (ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK). .......................................... 74
FIGURE 3.2 – PERFORMANCE PRIMACY. ........................................................................................................ 76
FIGURE 3.3 – PERFORMATIVITY DIMENSIONS. ................................................................................................ 78
FIGURE 3.4 – SPATIAL PERFORMANCE. ......................................................................................................... 80
FIGURE 3.5 – PLANNING ISSUES. .................................................................................................................. 81
FIGURE 3.6 – ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK. ...................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 3.7 – INTERVIEW AND RESEARCH DESIGN RELATIONSHIP. ...................................................................... 87
FIGURE 3.8 – PLAN ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DESIGN RELATIONSHIP. ................................................................ 95
FIGURE 3.9 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS SELECTED FOR EVALUATION. ........................................................... 100
FIGURE 4.1 – IDAS ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES. ............................................................................................ 125
FIGURE 6.1 – OUTCOME HIERARCHY. ......................................................................................................... 182
FIGURE 7.1 – BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVELS. ................................................................................................... 211
FIGURE 7.2 – MODIFIED PROCEDURAL MEASURES. ....................................................................................... 214
FIGURE 7.3 – IDENTIFIED ‘PROCEDURAL’ SPECTRUM. ..................................................................................... 221
FIGURE 7.4 – NEGATIVE SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ....................................................................................... 231
FIGURE 7.5 – POSITIVE SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ......................................................................................... 238
FIGURE 7.6 – MIXED SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ........................................................................................... 246
FIGURE 7.7 – IDENTIFIED ‘SUBSTANTIVE’ SPECTRUM. .................................................................................... 252
FIGURE 7.8 – COMBINED ‘SUBSTANTIVE’ AND ‘PROCEDURAL’ SPECTRUM. ......................................................... 261
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xii
List of Tables
TABLE 2.1 – IPA CHALLENGES AND ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 64
TABLE 3.1 – RESEARCH QUESTION, METHOD, ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE, RESEARCH OUTPUTS AND RELEVANT
THESIS CHAPTER MATRIX .................................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 3.2 – PROCEDURAL PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS .................................................................................... 78
TABLE 3.3 – SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS ................................................................................... 79
TABLE 3.4 – CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES/ INFLUENCES ON PERFORMANCE ............................................................... 82
TABLE 3.5 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS (NON-PLAN) ............................ 86
TABLE 3.6 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .................................................... 88
TABLE 3.7 – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 91
TABLE 3.8 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO PLANNING SCHEME EVALUATION..................................... 96
TABLE 3.9 – PLANNING SCHEME SELECTION AND CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES .......................................................... 97
TABLE 3.10 – MEASUREMENT CRITERIA ...................................................................................................... 104
TABLE 4.1 – PEDA AND PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING .............................................................................. 120
TABLE 4.2 – THE PURPOSE OF IPA .............................................................................................................. 121
TABLE 4.3 – ADVANCING THE PURPOSE OF THE IPA ....................................................................................... 122
TABLE 4.4 – DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 123
TABLE 4.5 – IDAS STAGES ........................................................................................................................ 124
TABLE 4.6 – ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES AND DECISION-MAKING........................................................................ 126
TABLE 4.7 – WHEN IS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NECESSARY? .......................................................................... 127
TABLE 4.8 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ........................................................................................................... 127
TABLE 4.9 – TYPES OF PRELIMINARY APPROVALS ........................................................................................... 128
TABLE 4.10 – CORE MATTERS ................................................................................................................... 130
TABLE 4.11 – IPA LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................. 133
TABLE 5.1 – BASIC INTERPRETATIONS .......................................................................................................... 142
TABLE 6.1 – LIST OF IPA PLAN-MAKING GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 175
TABLE 6.2 – GUIDELINE 1/02 EXTRACT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 181
TABLE 6.3 – LIST OF REFORM DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 198
TABLE 7.1– QUALIFICATION TYPES .............................................................................................................. 215
TABLE 7.2 – POLICY POSITION LABELS ......................................................................................................... 218
TABLE 7.3 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVELS ONLY ....................................................... 224
TABLE 7.4 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVELS .......................................................... 225
TABLE 7.5 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF NEGATIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES .......................... 229
TABLE 7.6 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF POSITIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ........................... 236
TABLE 7.7 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF MIXED LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES .............................. 244
TABLE 7.8 – COMBINED IMPACT OF DIRECT (POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE) LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ..................... 249
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xiii
TABLE 7.9 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH NO LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ...................................................... 253
TABLE 7.10 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH NEGATIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ........................................... 255
TABLE 7.11 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH POSITIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ............................................ 256
TABLE 7.12 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH MIXED LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ............................................... 257
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xiv
List of Planning Scheme Extracts
EXAMPLE 7.1 – BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVEL .................................................................................................... 212
EXAMPLE 7.2 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 1) ......................................................................... 216
EXAMPLE 7.3 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 2A) ........................................................................ 219
EXAMPLE 7.4 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 2B) ........................................................................ 220
EXAMPLE 7.5 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1) ............................................................................... 232
EXAMPLE 7.6 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 2) ............................................................................... 233
EXAMPLE 7.7 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 3) ............................................................................... 233
EXAMPLE 7.8 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 4) ............................................................................... 234
EXAMPLE 7.9 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 5) ............................................................................... 235
EXAMPLE 7.10 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1A) ............................................................................. 239
EXAMPLE 7.11 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1B) ............................................................................. 239
EXAMPLE 7.12 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 2) ............................................................................... 240
EXAMPLE 7.13 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 3) ............................................................................... 241
EXAMPLE 7.14 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 4A) ............................................................................. 242
EXAMPLE 7.15 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 4B) ............................................................................. 243
EXAMPLE 7.16 – MIXED CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1) .................................................................................. 247
EXAMPLE 7.17 – MIXED CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 2) .................................................................................. 248
EXAMPLE 7.18 – LOGAN 2006 (CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF CODE CRITERIA) ......................................................... 250
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xv
List of Abbreviations
• ACT (Australian Capital Territory)
• AMCORD (Australian Model Code for Residential Design)
• AS (Assessment Table)
• BCA (Benefit Cost Analysis)
• DA (Development Assessment)
• DA Team (Development Assessment Team)
• DEOs (Desired Environmental Outcomes)
• DILGEF (Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)
• DCILGP (Department of Communication, Information, Local Government and
Planning)
• DHLGP (Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning)
• DIP (Department of Infrastructure and Planning)
• DLGP (Department of Local Government and Planning)
• DLGPSR (Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation)
• ESD (Ecological Sustainable Development)
• ESP (Ecological Sustainability Principles)
• IDAS (Integrated Development Assessment System)
• IPA 1997 (Integrated Planning Act 1997)
• IPOLA (Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Act)
• KPI (Key Performance Indicator)
• LAP (Local Area Plan)
• LARP (Local Approvals Review Program)
• LG (Local Government)
• LGA (Local Government Area)
• LGA 1993 (Local Government Act)
• LGMS (Local Growth Management Strategy)
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xvi
• LGPP (Local Government Planning Policy)
• MCU (Material Change of Use)
• NSW (New South Wales)
• NPM (New Public Management)
• OP (Operational Principles)
• P & E (Planning and Environment)
• PBP (Performance Based Planning)
• PEA 1990 (Local Government [Planning and Environment] Act 1990)
• PEDA Bill (Planning, Environment and Development Assessment Bill)
• PIA (Planning Institute of Australia)
• PPIP (Policy-Plan/Program-Implementation-Process)
• PSP (Planning Scheme Policy)
• RMA (Resource Management Act 1990)
• RoL (Reconfiguring a Lot)
• SEQRP (South East Queensland Regional Plan)
• SPA 2009 (Sustainable Planning Act 2009)
• SPP (State Planning Policies)
• TOD (Transit Oriented Development)
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xvii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best
of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: _________________________
Date: _________________________
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xviii
Acknowledgments
This PhD has been an especially trying time for me and my family. It has been a
roller coaster ride oscillating between highs and lows interspersed with milestones which at
the time seem significant but in the end were just another small step towards another
milestone. This ongoing cycle of events is what a PhD is and you need to convince yourself
on a daily basis there is light at the end of the tunnel in order to make it through. It is quite
unusual in life to spend so much time focussed on one thing. My PhD journey has therefore
been my own Bermuda Triangle torn between family, study and consultancy work, never
being able to devote all your energy to any one particular thing for long periods of time. So
to me, a PhD is a testament to dedication and patience.
The dedication and patience though is not all of my own and I have many people to
thank along this journey. First and foremost is my wife Maria who has stuck with me
through thick and thin, which got particularly rough when the scholarship ran out. We have
had to do it tough for quite a while and at the same time provide the best we could for Liam
and Olivia our two children who were born during the course of the PhD. I hope that this
hard work will pay off for all of us. I also need to thank the in-laws and out-laws, that is,
both sets of Mums and Dads, who are both great sources of support, having different and
admirable qualities.
I must also thank Professor Doug Baker and Dr Paul Donehue for their ongoing
support and belief that I will get things done. Doug has the ability to get people motivated.
His bigger picture views and experience were valuable assets and he was patient in my
transition from consultancy work to academia which was a challenging time. Paul came in as
a pinch hitter in terms of helping me convert ideas into reality at a critical point. Between
Doug and Paul, I had a great team who complemented each other, and fortunately for me,
were genuinely interested in my research which was critical to me getting through. The
number of hours that Supervisors put into research is quite amazing when you have an
appreciation of their broader workloads and responsibilities. Based on my observations, the
responsibilities imposed on academics appear to be quite unreasonable at times which is
compounded by a university environment that always seems to be cutting funds but
expecting more from its staff.
I would also like to extend my thanks to Humphreys Reynolds Perkins Planning
Consultants and in particular David Perkins, who I have had a long association with. There is
no doubt that Dave probably thought I would never finish but to his credit he has let me
work when I’ve needed to work and let me have time off when I’ve needed to have time off.
The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning
Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xix
Without this type of support and flexible working arrangements, none of this would have
been possible. In addition, I would like to thank the interview participants and any other
person who gave up their time to assist in this research.
I would also like to thank my circle of friends. I have divided these groups of friends
into Uni friends and non-uni friends for convenience. To my mates at Uni, we have had
some great times going out to the pubs and restaurants, not to mention sitting around at lunch
time talking about anything and everything - most of it unrelated to Uni. This is precisely
what we needed though as we all shared the same ups and downs with our studies. So thanks
especially to Matt, Dave, Stu, Massi and Victoria and there are a bunch of others who were
lucky enough to have finished much earlier. I would hate to think how much we have spent
at Merlo buying coffee in the last few years! To my other friends, I can only thank you for
always asking the same question I knew was coming – are you finished yet? My answer has
not changed – don’t ask!
Last but not least, my PhD was not fuelled on an empty stomach or without
recreational pursuits. First, I need to thank all breweries for their continuing beer production
and my desire to do my best at recycling as many beer bottles as possible in this lifetime.
Second, if it was not for mountain biking, I don’t know where I would be. Mountain biking
to me is the best sport out there. It’s adrenaline pumping fun, good exercise and a great way
to meet people. As such, I would like to thank my regular riding crew for keeping me sane
and let me pretend I have some mates. The trip to NZ was awesome and hopefully we will
do it again this time in Whistler. Oh by the way Maria, I will always want a new bike. You
should know this by now.
Travis Frew
December 2011
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Performance based planning is a form of planning regulation that is not well
understood. The theoretical advantages of this type of planning are rarely achieved in
practice. Implementation methods vary considerably and are context dependent. No
empirical studies have attempted to quantitatively examine how land use is managed in this
type of regulation. No empirical studies have examined how context affects implementation
or whether performance based planning has the same conceptual meaning and function
across a range of perspectives in the planning process.
In theory, performance based planning is a type of planning regulation that relies on
quantitative performance standards to manage the effects of development and land use. It is
said to balance certainty and flexibility whereby the performance standards set the
quantitative benchmark to be achieved and the method of achievement is flexible, and is
argued to have many advantages over traditional regulation such as prescriptive zoning and
standards (e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Baker et al. 2006). Pure interpretations of
performance based planning are theoretically and conceptually less concerned with what a
activity is called and more concerned with managing the impacts or effects of that activity
(e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Yearbury 1998; England 2004; Ericksen et al. 2004;
Baker et al. 2006).
In practice, hybridised performance based planning approaches are prevalent. Hybrid
performance based approaches combine traditional planning mechanisms such as
prescriptive land use requirements with a variety of performance measures, including
quantitative performance standards and discretionary decision-making criteria. These
implementation approaches can be described as falling within a performance adoption
spectrum.
The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997) operated in Queensland (Australia)
between March 1998 and December 2009 and was the principal planning legislation. The
IPA 1997 represented a significant reorientation of planning in Queensland, a shift that
sought to integrate different levels of government under a single assessment framework and
promote innovative development. The IPA 1997 set out the requirements for managing the
planning process by specifying what a plan could contain and how development proposals
could be decided.
Chapter 1: Introduction 2
While the IPA 1997 did not use the term performance based planning, the system is
widely considered to be performance based in practice (e.g. Baker et al. 2006; Steele 2009a,
2009b). This is because a key tenet of the IPA 1997 was to prevent Local Government from
prohibiting development or use, although a plan was able to regulate the use of premises by
applying a code. In addition, the term zone was absent from the legislation. When the IPA
1997 commenced, some 123 local governments were required to prepare a new plan.
Queensland therefore provides a unique opportunity to examine how performance
based planning was implemented. However, the degree with which the IPA and the planning
system in Queensland is performance based is debated. For example, Yearbury (1998)
claimed that the IPA made allowance for performance based planning while England (2004)
believes it was a core objective of the IPA.
Determining how performance based planning has been perceived/ interpreted and
implemented in Queensland is therefore the core objective of this research. Research,
particularly quantitative research, into this type of planning is very limited. In the
Queensland context, this research has set out the following goals which are advanced by four
research questions presented later is this Chapter. These goals are to:
A. Understand what the intent and purpose of performance based planning is
conceptually;
B. Determine what parts of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 have a nexus with
performance based planning;
C. Explore how land use has been managed and how performance is measured in
planning schemes prepared under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and understand
why variation, if any, exists; and
D. Investigate the experiences of stakeholders within the Queensland planning system.
The research has been advanced using three primary methods within a broader
examination of Queensland, which is the overall case study. The methods have included an
analysis of legislative and non-legislative documentary sources using content analysis
techniques, the quantitative ex-post evaluation of seventeen planning schemes, and forty one
participant interviews.
This chapter outlines the author’s background and interest in the research (Section
1.1), the research context (Section 1.2), research hypothesis and questions (Section 1.3);
research framework (Section 1.4); and thesis outline (Section 1.5).
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
1.1 Author’s Interest in Research
The author of this research is a planner and has worked in the public and private
sector in Queensland, Australia and the United Kingdom for over a decade. The author has a
keen interest in plan-making and has observed the plan-making challenges and responses
that evolved in Queensland during the period of the IPA 1997. Implementation of the
system, which is widely agreed to be performance based in practice, has been heavily
criticised for not living up to expectations. The author’s professional interests in plan-making
and challenges observed during the period of the IPA prompted interest in this research.
1.2 Research Context
Performance based planning is touted as a type of planning regulation said to “right
many of the wrongs” of prescriptive zoning and standards (e.g. Kendig 1980). The standard
prescriptive model of planning has been widely criticised for its inflexibility and inability to
respond to changing circumstances, owing to its predetermined blueprint approach that
separates land uses on the basis of perceived incompatibilities with higher and lower order
land uses (e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988).
Rather than be preoccupied with the type of activity being proposed, performance
based planning is concerned with managing the impacts or effects of that land use, and is
thus a flexible land use planning approach (Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Yearbury 1998;
England 2004; Ericksen et al. 2004; e.g. Baker et al. 2006). Normatively, performance based
planning relies on performance standards to achieve this aim.
Little robust academic research has been undertaken which examines how
performance based planning has been conceptualised and implemented in practice and
existing literature is predominately non-empirical and consultant based (Baker et al. 2006).
Available research has not sought to quantitatively examine how land use has been managed
across a range of plans with different locational characteristics from a procedural and
substantive standpoint in a performance based environment. Nor have the contextual
influences affecting implementation methods been explored, or to what degree temporal
variation of implementation methods exists, although Porter (1998) has observed that this
form of planning regulation has often been abandoned or amalgamated with traditional
prescriptive planning approaches.
In North America contextual assumptions have suggested that performance based
planning is more suitable in high growth locations and for new development only (Exner and
Sawchuck 1996a), more suitable in pro-development municipalities and high growth
locations (Leung and Harper 2000), typically limited to rural and greenfield areas of cities
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
(John A Humphreys Associates 2002), and is more amendable to site-based planning
(Phalen 1983). In New Zealand, contextual based plan research has been typically limited to
ex-post plan quality evaluations (e.g. Ericksen et al. 2004) which is not the topic of the
research herein. In Queensland, contextual assumptions are limited to Wright (2001a) who
argued that performance based planning is more suitable to greenfield locations rather than
urban or peri-urban locations and Baker et al. (2006) who pointed out that the approach was
too site focussed.
The degree to which the IPA and the planning system in Queensland is performance
based is debated. In this regard, the IPA 1997 prevented Local Governments from being able
to prohibit development or use and did not refer to zones as a necessary pre-requisite for
plan-making. This was a significant departure from the former planning system that had
relied on prescriptive regulation for many decades. Furthermore, the IPA 1997 required
outcomes and measures in plans but specified little other detail within the legislation.
Compounding the limited plan-making direction in the legislation was an absence of non-
statutory guidance for plan-making at the IPA’s commencement. Therefore plan-making
under the IPA, at least in the early period, was weakly specified and methods of
implementation were not clear.
The absence of detailed plan-making guidance under the IPA meant that early plan-
makers were tasked with determining how to formulate plans and decide how to manage
land use when prohibitions were no longer permitted, how to spatially manage land use when
zones were not referred to, how to decide what type of measures to employ. This dilemma
ultimately resulted in a range of performance based implementation methods, some more
experimental than others.
1.3 Research Hypotheses and Questions
A variety of performance based implementation methods were observed in the
literature. This variation provides an opportunity to examine how and to what extent
performance based planning was implemented in Queensland plans and enables an
understanding of how it was perceived and interpreted in practice. In this research it was
hypothesised that:
A. An adoption spectrum exists in Queensland with respect to the application of
performance based planning. This is because context influences how performance based
planning is conceptualised and implemented, including perception, spatial context,
location, time of adoption, and plan-making guidance.
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
The hypothesis was advanced by four research questions. The research questions are
presented below:
(1) What is the concept of ‘performance based planning’ in planning trying to achieve?
Is there a range of interpretations?
Purpose of Question: The purpose of the question is designed to determine if there is a
common understanding of performance based planning across a range of perspectives in
an international context. Determining whether there are different conceptual and
practical interpretations of performance based planning is fundamental to understanding
this type of planning from a Queensland perspective.
(2) How has performance based planning been conceptualised under the Integrated
Planning Act 1997 and is there a range of interpretations?
Purpose of Question: While detailed decision-making processes were included in the
IPA, few plan-making requirements were provided. Determining how performance
based planning is expressed under the IPA is fundamental to the understanding of how it
was implemented in the Queensland context.
(3) How has performance based planning been implemented within Queensland’s
planning schemes prepared under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and is there a
range of expressions?
Objective of Question: Determining how performance based planning has been
expressed in plans is fundamental to understanding how it was implemented in practice
from a procedural and substantive standpoint.
(4) What are the implementation experiences when using the Integrated Planning Act
1997 planning schemes?
Purpose of Question: The purpose of the question is to determine why variation in
implementation occurred, if any, and also to understand the advantages and limitations
of performance based planning.
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
1.4 Research Framework
A variety of performance based implementation methods were observed in the
literature. This variation was developed into a performance adoption spectrum (see Chapter
2). This spectrum was then integrated within an analytical framework in Chapter 3, which
guided the research and case study analysis. A small number of the key elements of the
analytical framework are presented below.
The Performance Adoption Spectrum captures how performance based planning is
expressed and ranges between pure and hybrid interpretations. Plan Performativity is a
relative comparison by which land use is managed in plans having regard to the procedural
dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and the substantive dimension of
performance (Codes). These dimensions can be used to determine whether land use is
managed directly or indirectly in plans, where direct measures of land use performance (e.g.
prescriptive zones or the proscriptive specification of land use appropriateness) would
suggest a hybridised performance based planning approach.
The documentary analysis and interviews were used to bolster the findings of the plan
evaluations according to those who are ‘on the ground’ and in turn understand why
differences of opinion existed, if any.
The analytical framework also considers context, and the degree to which context
influences the implementation of performance based planning in Queensland. Contextual
tests included:
whether the location of the local government affected how land use was expressed in
plans;
whether over time flexible performance measures are replaced in favour of more
certain performance measures;
to what degree the Departmental plan-making guidelines affected the expression of
performance based planning;
whether different perceptions of the concept exist; and
whether performance based planning is applicable at a variety of spatial scales.
1.5 Thesis Outline
The following section provides a brief overview of each chapter for completeness.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of performance based planning, examining the
theoretical (or normative) elements of this type of planning regulation. The benefits of this
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
type of planning regulation, origins and drivers, and methods of implementation are
compared and are developed into a comprehensive definition of performance based planning
to guide the research. The definitional spectrum of performance based planning is wide, and
ranges between pure and hybrid approaches (the Performance Adoption Spectrum). The
chapter is completed with a detailed examination of the existing literature and empirical
review from North America, New Zealand and Australia.
Chapter 3 outlines the research hypothesis and research questions and specifies the
research contributions. The chapter includes an analytical framework that draws together the
literature and further develops the Performance Adoption Spectrum for the purposes of
examining the implementation of performance based planning in Queensland (the case
study). The case study is explored via three main forms of inquiry. This includes a statutory
and non-statutory documentary analysis; an ex-post evaluation of seventeen planning
schemes; and forty one participant interviews. The chapter concludes with a description of
the research limitations.
Chapter 4 commences with an overview of planning in Australia and Queensland for
contextual purposes. The chapter then describes the pre-IPA reform agenda that commenced
in the 1990’s, culminating in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997). The chapter also
overviews the key statutory decision-making elements and plan-making elements of the IPA
1997 as well the legislative amendments (from commencement to 2006), in order to
understand how planning was implemented and how performance based planning was
described and expressed during the period of the IPA.
Chapter 5 examines how performance based planning was conceptualised and
interpreted in Queensland from the perspective of interview participants. The chapter sought
participant views on the concept, function and spatial application of performance based
planning; how the concept was embodied in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997);
and finally identifies the primary performance based plan components within the system.
Chapter 6 examines the key non-statutory documents that were produced during the
IPA’s tenure by the State Government. These included a range of plan-making guidelines
and discussion papers. The documents provided an insight into how performance based
planning was described and translated into practice and also conveyed experiences in the
planning system. The chapter is supplemented by participant interviews which discuss the
impact of the plan-making guidelines on how performance based planning was interpreted
and expressed in practice.
Chapter 1: Introduction 8
Chapter 7 examines how land use was managed in plans to determine their relative
plan performativity across seventeen local government plans based on the procedural
dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and substantive dimension of performance
(Codes). The chapter develops the land use findings into typologies and examines the
influence of context on methods of implementation.
Chapter 8 examines experiences in practice which include plan-making experiences,
decision-making experiences, and a range of unexpected consequences. The chapter
highlights the difficulties of implementing a performance based planning system.
Chapter 9 includes the concluding statements, revisits the hypotheses and research
questions, and provides recommendations for further research and for planning practice. The
chapter describes what aspects of Queensland’s planning system are believed to be
performance based.
Chapter 2: Performance Based Planning 9
Chapter 2 – Performance Based Planning
Performance based planning in its most “pure sense” is a method of planning that
relies on measurable performance standards to manage development and land use. This type
of planning is argued to balance certainty and flexibility where performance standards
provide certainty as to the benchmark to be achieved, and where the method of achievement
is flexible. Furthermore, performance based planning is argued to be less concerned with
what a development is called and more concerned with managing the impacts or effects of
that activity, where land use acceptability is determined by the performance standards.
There is considerable variation and confusion in the literature about performance
based planning, including the terminology used to describe this type of planning and the
methods of implementation utilised. This chapter therefore examines the theory and practice
of performance based planning by drawing together the wide range of interpretations and
methods of adoption from the literature review and the international experience of
performance based planning, and then developing a performance adoption spectrum to assess
the methods of implementation.
The chapter is divided into two parts. First, the chapter provides an overview of
performance based planning including various descriptions and pervasive themes
underpinning the concept, historical influences, origins and drivers, as well as the perceived
benefits and methods of implementation, with the latter focussing on land use management
techniques. This part of the chapter is developed into a definition of performance based
planning that has been used to guide this research. Second, the chapter explores the
performance based literature from North America, New Zealand and Australia, which is
divided into plan-based and non-plan based literature, and culminates with an explanation of
the gaps in existing literature. The two parts of this chapter have been used to guide the
analytical framework and research methods presented in Chapter 3.
2.1 Performance Based Planning Descriptions and Interpretations
The description of performance based planning approaches in the literature is
contextual and locality specific, which contributes to the difficulty in understating the
concept and also understanding its implementation in practice. Furthermore, in practice,
performance based approaches are often an implicit part of plans, and often only reflected in
single dimensions of plan content. This does not promote an understanding of the concept.
Chapter 2: Performance Based Planning 10
In more recent times, performance based planning approaches have been more broadly
conceived as fundamental aspects of planning systems. These adoption subtleties, may in
part, explain the lack of cohesive terminology and understanding and in addition have
perhaps contributed to the limited amount of research dedicated to this type of planning.
Despite these challenges, common themes are evident. These themes include how certainty
and flexibility are expressed in decision-making and how land use is managed in
performance based planning approaches. A small number of key performance based
descriptions/ interpretations are presented below.
Lane Kendig is regarded as one of the pioneers of performance based approaches and
uses the term ‘Performance Zoning’ to describe his model of performance based planning
(see Kendig 1980, 1982). Kendig (1982, 18) describes Performance Zoning as a model
which:
....employs districts to separate areas with broadly different functions and character rather than relying
on the districts to isolate different uses. The idea is to permit the landowner a number of ways to
develop his property. Instead of attempting to restrict the use of the land to protect the environment and
neighbours, carrying capacities and buffer zone standards are used. The standards are based on
performance, not land use....
Central to Kendig’s interpretation are a number of themes. These themes highlight
that: (1) detailed land use zones are less critical in this type of planning; (2) performance
standards provide operational proxies of land use acceptability and suitability; (3) the
performance standards provide certainty as to the acceptable limits of the development; and
(4) developer/ landowners have development flexibility within the bounds set by the
performance standards. In this example, it is noted that while Kendig’s interpretation does
not abandon spatial management units entirely, he alternatively promotes broad spatial
districts of certain function and character, rather than fine grained prescriptive zones. In this
interpretation, prescriptive spatial management and land use type specification is of less
concern. In supporting this position, Juster (1997, 64) argues that “the fundamental concept
underlying Performance Zoning is that within broad limits varying urban uses can coexist
with one another. The key to compatibility is the intensity with which, rather than purposes
for which, land is used”.
Porter et al. (1988) used the term ‘Flexible Zoning’ to describe a variety of flexible
planning regulations including Performance Zoning, Impact Zoning and Points Systems.
Porter et al. (1988, 7) argue that “in the ideal version of this type of zoning, any use is
allowable in any location, subject to performance standards that guard against harmful
effects spilling over on other uses”. Porter et al. also make the critical distinction between
flexible systems and flexible measures and concede that the division between flexible
systems and flexible measures is not always obvious. However, despite this distinction,
Porter et al. indicate that flexible zoning systems have three common characteristics, where
Chapter 2: Performance Based Planning 11
flexible zoning: (1) is the primary community wide approach to planning; (2) employs to
some extent performance based criteria/ standards to determine the appropriateness of uses;
and (3) is administratively supported to provide more predictable and consistent decisions.
This interpretation highlights an ideal perspective of the approach which relies on: (1)
performance criteria/ standards focussed on managing effects; (2) is less concerned with
prescriptive spatial management and specification of land use type; and (3) desires to
increase administrative certainty.
New Zealand has adopted the term ‘effects based planning’ to describe its
performance based planning approach. In New Zealand, the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA) was intended to provide a flexible framework where “the limits of environmental
effects of activities would be defined, but the activities themselves would be unspecified,
giving an opportunity for market innovation and technological change to define them”
(Ericksen et al. 2004, 12). The intent of the effects based regime was to gain maximum
environmental benefit with minimum regulation (Ericksen et al. 2004). A similar observation
was made by Spiller (2003, 100) in relation to the RMA, who stated, “under the effects based
model there is no presumption of land use incompatibility or adverse impacts on the
environment. Each application for development (resource consent) is assessed on its merits”.
This interpretation focuses of the effects of development, rather than necessarily the land use
itself. In this respect certainty is provided by the ‘defined’ limits of the effects and flexibility
is provided within the bounds of those specified effects.
The term ‘performance based planning’ has been used in Queensland, Australia to
describe its performance based approach. Yearbury (1998, 198) indicated that, “the IPA
makes specific reference to managing the effects of development on the environment. This is
designed to encourage (but not prescribe) a shift away from regulating land use by
nomenclature to one which assesses impact against the desired outcome”. Yearbury (1998,
198-199) goes on to say “what something is called will not, in the future, be an adequate
basis to distinguish whether it is acceptable or not. But I hasten to add the IPA does not
prevent planning schemes regulating development by what it is called rather than how it
performs. But it does allow for, and anticipates, an evolution towards performance based
planning”. This interpretation refers to managing effects and achieving outcomes and is
again less concerned with directly managing land use by use type. However, the description
openly recognises that both prescriptive land use regulation and performance based
approaches may be appropriate within the same system. In comparison, England (2004) uses
the umbrella term ‘outcome oriented planning’ to encompass ‘strategic planning’ and
‘performance based planning’ (including DEOs and performance measures) in her
description of the Queensland planning system. England (2006b, 83) supports this opinion
Chapter 2: Performance Based Planning 12
by arguing “outcome focussed planning implies development decision-making will be
guided by the need to achieve certain outcomes whilst allowing maximum flexibility about
the means to achieve those outcomes”, and that, “decision-makers must be guided by the
outcomes sought rather than the nomenclature or type of development proposed per se”.
These interpretations, while being slightly different, are focussed to signal a clear shift from
the arbitrary management of land use on the basis of the activity type. England also
distinguished between broader spatial policy considerations and performance based
planning.
Baker et al. (2006) in a comprehensive overview of performance based approaches in
the United States, Australia and New Zealand used the term ‘performance based planning’ to
describe strategic and operational levels (multi-spatial) to attain desired outcomes. Baker et
al. describe performance based planning as a type of planning that is more concerned with
the operational management of land uses, based on physical characteristics and function,
rather than the use type itself. This interpretation also draws attention to decision-making
certainty that relies on quantitative performance standards, but also makes reference to
achieving outcomes. Baker et al. (2006, 396) state:
performance-based regulation is built upon the assumption that the impacts of land use are a function of
intensity, or the physical characteristics and functions, rather than specific land uses themselves (such
as commercial or residential). A potential development is assessed against predetermined standards
(performance measurement) that set quantitative limits on acceptable levels of use. Thus, performance-
based approaches are composed of two components: first, criteria that describe the desired end result,
and second, methods to define standards used to measure the acceptable limits of impact to ensure the
desired end result (such as noise impacts).
A variety of less well explained interpretations of this type of performance based
approaches exist and are offered for comparison purposes. For
Recommended