digest issue 2, 2009 - UDIA NSW€¦DEVELOPERS DIGEST 1 developers digest issue 2, 2009 Greening the Inner-South: Victoria Park and Green Square Biobanking Update Finding a balance

DEVELOPERS DIGEST 1

developersissue 2, 2009digest

Greening the Inner-South: Victoria Park and Green Square

Biobanking Update

Finding a balance – the Henry Review

SC

D01

182

SC

D01

259

DEVELOPERS DIGEST 3

CO

VER

IMA

GE:

VIC

TOR

IA P

AR

K B

Y LA

ND

CO

M

Views expressed in any article in Developers Digest are those of the individual contributor and not necessarily those of the publisher. The publisher cannot accept any responsibility for any opinions, information, errors or omissions in this publication. To the extent permitted by law, the publisher will not be liable for any damages including, special, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages (including but not limited to economic loss or loss of profit or revenue or loss of opportunity) or indirect loss or damage of any kind arising in contract, tort or otherwise, even if advised

of the possibility of such loss of profits or damage. Advertisements must comply with the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Responsibility for compliance with the Act rests with the person, company or advertising agency submitting the advertisement.

COPYRIGHT All rights reserved. Copyright of articles and photographs of Developers Digest remain with the individual contributors and may not be reproduced without permission. Other material may be reproduced, but only with the permission of The Magazine Publishing Company.

UDIA NSWEditor, Developers Digest – Lisa Marshall [email protected]

PO BOX 912 EPPING NSW 1710

T: (02) 9868 3677 F: (02) 9868 7117 W: www.udia-nsw.com.au

Publisher: The Magazine Publishing Company

PO Box 406, Nundah QLD 4012 T: (07) 3866 0000 F: (07) 3866 0066

E: [email protected] W: www.tmpc.com.au Advertising Sales: (07) 3866 0000 ABN 70010 660 009

contents

04 President’s Report05 CEO’s Report06 Minister for Planning’s Report 08 Current Issues12 Development Feature16 Industry News28 People + Events

32 Development Intelligence33 National Update34 Legal News36 Member News39 Profile40 Events + Professional Development41 Sponsors

12

10

27

3632

DEVELOPERS DIGEST 1

developersissue 2, 2009digest

Greening the Inner-South: Victoria Park and Green Square

Biobanking Update

Finding a balance – the Henry Review

4 DEVELOPERS DIGEST

Structural reform

Judy McKittrickUDIA NSW PRESIDENT

A new financial year and will it see improvement in the economy and our industry? The stimulus package has certainly helped the first home buyer market, but in the coming months that will wind back and then what? Some in our industry will be busy with the schools and social housing work but most will be waiting anxiously upon a recovery to the main economy.

president’s report

Now more than ever we need structural reform so that we are well positioned when the economic and employment conditions improve:

• taxation

– the Henry Review has the potential to recommend much needed reform in taxation. UDIA has made a submission to the review calling for Federal intervention to reform the taxation system and drive an agenda for deregulation and microeconomic reform for the property and development sector. The submission focuses on the impact that the prevailing tax system has on urban development – investment in urban development and the shape of cities but most importantly housing affordability for all Australians;

• howinfrastructureisfundedanddelivered

– despite the recent reviews to state and local contributions resulting in some reductions, the system of funding infrastructure remains inequitable with new home buyers unfairly burdened with paying for infrastructure and services.

As a general principal, Government needs to ensure that the cost of infrastructure provision is borne by the broadest base of beneficiaries, rather than the narrow inefficient and inequitable framework that currently exists. As a key initial step, UDIA NSW is calling on the Government to remove rate pegging and consolidate smaller local government areas to generate greater efficiencies in infrastructure and service provision; and

• theplanningregimeremainscomplexandlegalistic with unnecessary duplication in approval processes. Why for instance having spent over two years to achieve rezoning for a release area, is it necessary to have negotiate Controlled Activity Approvals for the treatment of riparian corridors?

UDIA both at the national and state level will continue to advocate for reform in these areas.

Providing services to members is also an important part of our activities and we recently launched Development Intelligence, our quarterly research report.

This quarterly report features a comprehensive analysis on every relevant statistic and data release that impact on the development industry. UDIA NSW has partnered with leading industry commentator Rob Ellis from Property Insights to deliver this report, and regular commentary on issues of relevance to the industry – including DA approval statistics, changes in the official cash rate, and changes in consumer confidence.

Development Intelligence not only delivers even more value for your membership but also focuses on ensuring that you have the expert analysis and commentary that will be critical to steering a steady course through these uncertain times. We would welcome your feedback on this latest service.

In the coming months we have a number of events planned with a range of high calibre and interesting speakers including Bill Evans, Chief Economist, Westpac; Brad Hazzard MP, Shadow Minister for Planning, and Rod Fehring, CEO, Lend Lease Primelife, to name but a few. Keep an eye out for emails and flyers advising of these events.

One of our biggest annual events is coming up on 25 September – our Awards for Excellence gala dinner. This year marks the 15th Anniversary of the Awards so be sure to join us to help celebrate this state’s achievements and recognise excellence in development.

I look forward to catching up with you at our next event.

In the coming months we have a number of events planned with a range of high calibre and interesting speakers including Bill Evans, Chief Economist, Westpac; Brad Hazzard MP, Shadow Minister for Planning, and Rod Fehring, CEO, Lend Lease Primelife, to name but a few.

DEVELOPERS DIGEST 5 DEVELOPERS DIGEST 5

ceo’s report

Conversion is the key

Stephen AlbinUDIA NSW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Over the last 12 weeks I have done a whistle stop tour of all of our policy Committees, personally met with our industry leaders, had the opportunity to brush shoulders with more than 1000 people associated with the business at our lunches, briefings and breakfasts, and met with the key decision makers in Government and the Opposition.

If the economic fortunes of the industry are based on the level of experience, enthusiasm and commitment of the people I have met in UDIA NSW, then we are in good hands.

The economic fortunes of not only the industry but of all Australians are inextricably linked to our members. More than 10 per cent of economic activity directly and indirectly is a product of property and development. Around 10 per cent of employment is directly and indirectly attributed to the property and development sector. There was no mistake that the Commonwealth Government added further stimuli and boosts to home buyers. It was also no mistake that the NSW Government provided additional stimulus and tax relief for the sector in the recent Budget. Governments are starting to recognise the economic significance of the industry. And this recognition is a result of the work of UDIA NSW and its dedicated and committed members.

Handing out incentives is one thing – but delivering results on the ground is a totally different proposition. Conversion will be our key priority over the coming 12 months.

For instance, the NSW Government has predicted a housing boom in 2009-2010 with an extra 24,000 new homes coming to

market. This we can assume, is the result of the increased stimulus and tax relief for home purchasers and probably the result of a forecast economic turnaround.

Additionally, our research partner Property Insights, through our quarterly research report, Development Intelligence, has shown housing affordability in NSW has never been better – with housing in Sydney now being more affordable than Brisbane.

A member that was sitting next to me at the presentation of report remarked that it has been the first time he had seen an affordability led downturn!

The forecasts are correct but only depict one side of the equation. I have now learnt that you can reduce interest rates, introduce all types of buyer incentives but policymakers need to be acutely aware of the supply side of situation.

Issues such as the availability of finance, delays in the planning system, poor regulatory systems, lack of land supply are critical. Policy makers should be aware that you cannot just turn on the demand tap and supply will follow and vice versa.

Conversion and improving the general activity in the industry will be reliant on the ability

of UDIA NSW and policymakers to address demand and supply issues simultaneously.

The present state of the market poses some real challenges for UDIA NSW. We have just witnessed a level of demand stimulus never experienced in modern Australia. For the development sector, it is starting to be wound back. The stimulus basically enabled the existing unsold stock to be sold in a economic downturn but there has been little new stock coming to market. The financial crisis has seen some key financial supporters of the property industry announce their withdrawal from the property market, honouring their existing commitments but undertaking no extra debt financing for developers. Governments have made some key policy announcements regarding removing supply bottlenecks to planning, but have also wound back some of their promises.

Once debt finance dries up, land supply is constrained and the planning system buckles under delays and inefficiencies – it doesn’t matter how many incentives Governments provide, and doesn’t matter how affordable housing is – there will be little development.

Given the prevailing buoyant demand conditions it is more important than ever that UDIA NSW focuses on improving the supply side for our industry. If we are confronted by supply bottlenecks, the ramifications are not for the next six months, year or two years – the impacts will be long lasting.

We will redouble our efforts in improving the planning system and we will provide better information and research to ensure that rational investment and finance decisions can be made. Conversion is the key and we will make Governments aware of the intricacies of the development sector to ensure the future health of this industry and the economy as a whole.

Your involvement in UDIA NSW now will deliver your business great returns for years to come.

6 DEVELOPERS DIGEST6 DEVELOPERS DIGEST

minister for planning’s report

Minister’s Report

The Hon. Kristina Keneally MPMINISTER FOR PLANNING

In the midst of a global economic crisis Governments have no higher priority than protecting jobs and facilitating investment. One of the most important tools Governments can deploy to beat back the effects of an economic downturn and lay the groundwork for recovery is an efficient and effective Planning system.

That is why now is precisely the time for New South Wales to set its vision firmly on one goal – creating Australia’s best planning system.

Australia’s best planning system is one in which decisions are efficient, transparent, certain and made at the most appropriate level.

Decisions at their most appropriate level ensures that projects of local significance are determined at a local level, projects with regional impact are determined at a regional level, and projects important to the state’s economy are determined by the state.

The Joint Regional Planning Panels will commence operating on 1 July. A panel of experts will de-politicise decision making and bring a regional focus by determining projects with a capital investment value of $10 million or more.

Under the Rees Government, Part 3A of the EP&A Act will continue to provide a whole of government, streamlined approach to major projects.

The Joint Regional Planning Panels and Part 3A are key to delivering Australia’s best planning system by ensuring that decisions are made at the most appropriate level.

For the Rees Government, there is no higher priority than ensuring we attract jobs and investment – and Part 3A is crucial in attracting development to our state.

However, the NSW Opposition take a very different view.

In the past few months the Opposition Leader and the Shadow Planning Minister have confirmed on many occasions that a Coalition Government would abolish Part 3A.

In the last few weeks, the Opposition Leader outlined what he would put in its place: nothing. Yes, that’s right. Nothing.

The Leader of the Opposition has outlined in a speech to the Shires Association, and again on an ABC Stateline interview, that a Coalition Government will return all planning powers to local councils.

Every coal mine, every residential subdivision, every new town centre, every industrial estate, every business park, every

power station, every new hospital, school and public housing development, every rezoning – all of it determined by local councils.

These are major projects, job creating projects, projects important to the state’s economic growth and the Opposition is promising to wash their hands of any responsibility to facilitate this investment.

This is a policy position that should cause concern for any person interested in economic growth and job creation. On this vital issue to the state’s economic well-being, the Opposition Leader is abdicating leadership. He is vacating the space.

The Leader of the Opposition thinks he is on a populist bent here.

Saying he will ‘hand planning powers back to Councils’ makes a good glib 10 second grab, but it is not a planning policy that will create jobs and investment.

Nor is it a planning policy that will work for local communities.

It is the ultimate shift to councils – all the cost and all the responsibility – to determine every project application in the state. This will clog up Council systems; divert Council resources from dealing with projects important to local communities; and will treat major projects exactly the same as a DA for the family home.

Leadership is not just about the title, and it’s not just about the 10 second grab. It’s about taking the tough decisions, about taking a view about what’s important to the state as a whole, and it’s about being responsible for the economic well-being of the state.

Our goal of Australia’s best planning system is the right prescription for the current economic climate, or indeed, for any economic climate.

Creating Australia’s best planning system will ensure the State of NSW will emerge from this economic downturn in better shape than when we entered it.

We are well on our way to this goal. In terms of efficiency, the numbers speak for themselves. In the nine months since September, the Rees Government has

approved 336 major projects, creating over 55,000 jobs and facilitating nearly $14 billion in investment – and these figures contrast favourably for the previous nine months.

Efficiency gains are a result of the removal of some 1300 concurrences and referrals, introducing project delivery managers in the Department of Planning, and setting clear deadlines for them to meet: 85 per cent of projects to be determined in three months, 95 per cent to be finalised within five months; and no project assessment to exceed 8 months.

Certainty in planning decisions is essential to provide confidence for investors and proponents of major projects in our state. The introduction of the ‘gateway process’ for planning proposals will deliver early, up front decisions and tailor the consultation, study requirements and plan making process to suit the complexity of the changes.

Certainty will also result from rapid rezoning processes. The Rees Government’s decision to integrate the Growth Centres Commission into the Department of Planning and expand their focus on land release state-wide will be integral to meeting our new timeframes for rezoning: 3 months for a minor rezoning to correct anomalies; 6-12 months for routine rezonings; 6-12 months for land release and other major rezonings that are consistent with regional or sub-regional strategies, and two years for a comprehensive LEP.

Transparency is essential for proponents and the community to have confidence in planning decisions. The newly created Planning Assessment Commission and the Joint Regional Planning Panels deliver that transparency by depoliticising planning determinations and providing independent advice to the Minister.

The example of the Ikea proposal in Tempe is a case in point. Issues like political donations from the proponent and the fact that the project was in my electorate were dealt with transparently by the Planning Assessment Commission, who determined the project. The southern hemisphere’s biggest Ikea, as well as the company’s Australian headquarters in a building with local heritage

DEVELOPERS DIGEST 7

minister for planning’s report

JSD

0089

5

STRATA SETTLEMENTS4 WEEKS EARLIER?

This may be possible!Your final Strata Plan can be endorsed without applying to the Local Council:

Gordon Wrenis a Principal Certifier-Subdivisions and an Accredited Certifier-Strata

Interested? Go ahead and contact me at:

PO Box 150 BANKSTOWN NSW 1885Phone: 0418 223 748 or 9790 6608 Fax: 9708 5753

Email: [email protected] Web: www.grinsell.com.au

listing, gained planning approval in 7 months – and were welcomed by the local council and local community. The head of Ikea Australia told the media that ‘getting planning approval was the easiest part of the project.’

That’s precisely the outcome we want for every major project in New South Wales.

In that context, I issue a challenge. Let’s stop talking of planning reforms. Reform is a good word, no doubt about it.

But reform is also a concession that things are bad and must be fixed. Reform focuses backwards on what happened in the past.

Rather, the goal of Australia’s best planning system is forward-looking. It is striving forward rather than focusing on what happened before. It is imagining a future rather than ruing the past. It is creating a vision for where we are going rather than ruminating on the directions we took previously.

Make no mistake – I don’t suggest we ignore the experience of the past – but we don’t let it determine our future.

The future of our planning system – and ultimately the future of our state’s economic well being – is ours to create.

We have a good planning system, and it is

getting better each day with the changes we are making.

The UDIA is an important part in the work that we are doing. As a significant stakeholder in urban renewal and land release, the UDIA plays a leadership role in creating Australia’s best planning system. Recent initiatives, such as the Development Intelligence Report, provide significant information and analysis

in the current uncertain economic climate. I look forward to attending my next UDIA event in September, and value the advice and input from Judy McKittrick and leadership team at the organisation.

As a state, let’s set ourselves a positive vision and strive towards a goal that challenges and inspires us – a great planning system, indeed, Australia’s best.

“GETTING PLANNING APPROVAL WAS THE EASIEST PART OF THE PROJECT,” SAID THE HEAD OF IKEA AUSTRALIA.


current issues

UDIA NSW released their submission in July, for the purpose of informing the Department of Planning in the drafting and development of the guidelines, and contends that the development of the planning guidelines must be based on the following principle objectives:

• Toprovideinvestmentcertaintytodevelopment proponents, landowners, homeowners and the broader community.

• Toprovidecertaintytolocalcouncilsand development proponents on the correct assessment, approval and appeal processes.

• Toenableconsistencybetweenlocalcouncils and avoid fragmented responses or misinterpretation of the guidelines.

• Tofacilitateatriplebottomlineapproachtosustainable development.

UDIA NSW has consulted broadly with our membership base, including our Regional Chapters, and has identified the following concerns considered relevant to the

Sea level rise planning guidelines

Adrien ByrneUDIA NSW POLICY OFFICER

The NSW Government released the Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Statement in February 2009 setting out the Government’s approach to sea level rise and how it intends to respond to the impacts of sea level rise in the context of land use planning. The draft Policy proposed the introduction of sea level rise planning benchmarks and the development of sea level rise planning guidelines to support those benchmarks.

development of the guidelines. The basis of these concerns is supported in the context of the principle objectives provided above.

Implications of Sea Level Rise Benchmarks on PlanningThe implications of sea level rise and the application of sea level rise planning benchmarks to coastal development in NSW remains uncertain. Flood modelling of all coastal areas must be undertaken by the NSW Government to properly assess the impact of any sea level rise benchmark on land directly adjacent to the coast as well as coastal rivers and streams. UDIA NSW submits that the implications on associated development controls upstream of a river mouth must be considered in the context of any flood modelling.

The development industry and broader community require an understanding of the implications of sea level rise policy and related guidelines on current and future land releases. Additionally the implications of the guidelines on new development and redevelopment of existing buildings warrants further clarification.

Flood modelling is necessary to ensure local councils correctly and consistently apply the sea level rise planning benchmarks. UDIA NSW asserts that this would reflect the objective of the current planning reforms to increase planning consistency amongst councils.

To support detailed flood modelling, the NSW Government and local councils must provide comprehensive mapping of sea level rise affected land consistent with any applicable sea level rise planning benchmark. Mapping exists for a range of planning matters which inform local development controls including bushfire, native vegetation, acid sulphate soils, heritage etc.

Mapping of sea level rise affected land in NSW coastal regions is consistent with the breadth of mapping surrounding other natural resource and conservation matters that are applicable to the planning and development

process. Sea level rise mapping would support the decision making processes of the development industry, local councils and the broader community. UDIA NSW argues that flood modeling and mapping of sea level rise are fundamental to inform all stakeholders of the implications of sea level rise policy.

Consideration of Sea Level Rise and Climate ChangeAs evident by recent climate change litigation it is necessary for a developer to ‘consider’ climate change and its impacts. The guidelines must clearly specify what onus is on a developer to adequately consider sea level rise in the planning and development process.

Fundamentally, UDIA NSW is of the view that a robust strategic planning framework would sufficiently consider sea level rise implications at the strategic planning scale. This would negate the need to consider this matter at later intervals in the development process thereby avoiding regulatory duplication and streamlining the development approval process.

Concurrences and ReferralsThe assessment of any development proposal potentially affected by sea level rise policy must be done in the context of the broader planning outcomes of a development proposal. For the purposes of efficiency and reducing delays in the assessment of development proposals, sea level rise assessment responsibilities should be delegated only to a relevant council officer.

UDIA NSW does not support any process that would require a development proposal to be referred to another agency such as the Department of Environment and Climate Change or a Catchment Management Authority for consultation. UDIA NSW similarly does not support the need for any concurrence mechanism to be introduced through statute.

Flood modelling is necessary to ensure local councils correctly and consistently apply the sea level rise planning benchmarks. UDIA NSW asserts that this would reflect the objective of the current planning reforms to increase planning consistency amongst councils.


current issues

Transitional Arrangements To support the workable implementation of the guidelines, the Department of Planning must consider the need for transitional arrangements. Many local councils have already introduced sea level rise policies and related planning controls. Similarly many local councils do not have an existing sea level rise policy or any associated planning controls.

An assessment of the impacts of introducing state-wide guidelines on the existing local planning framework should be conducted by the NSW Government. Further, transitional arrangements must be provided for existing landowners and developers on sea level rise affected land. This will assist the development industry as well as local councils adapt to new planning guidelines.

Appeal ProcessThe NSW Government has recognised in the draft Policy, that the sea level rise planning benchmark ‘is not intended to be used to preclude development of land projected to be affected by sea level rise.’ Considering the intent of the exhibited sea level rise policy, the guidelines must clearly outline an appropriate appeal mechanism for a proponent to appeal the imposition of a planning benchmark on a specific development or parcel of land.

The relationship between sea level rise planning controls and SEPP 1 (Development Standards) must also be clearly outlined in the guidelines. This will provide clarity to industry, councils and the community and assist in avoiding single issue planning.

Development Potential of LandThe guidelines must consider the impact projected sea level rise or planning benchmarks will have on the development potential of land indirectly affected by sea level rise. This indirect impact would include the implications sea level rise has on services and access routes below the benchmarks which support developable land that is above the benchmarks.

Further, financial responsibility for mitigation works including the maintenance of access roads and services affected by sea level rise requires consideration. UDIA NSW does not support the imposition or recovery of mitigation costs on the development industry through an inequitable levy framework or section 94 contributions. Any such costs should be borne by the community as a whole to ensure geographic and intergenerational equity.

The guidelines must also clearly specify the development uses permitted on land affected by projected sea level rise. Considering the draft Policy does not intend to preclude development of land affected by sea level rise, a clear identification of

permitted uses would be beneficial to all stakeholders in the development process.

Mitigation WorksThe development potential of certain land, as well as the protection of existing property, may be contingent on the ability for a proponent to construct mitigation works on either public or private land. The guidelines must provide for and detail a facilitative approvals process for mitigation works to be carried out as necessary to protect property.

Mitigating actual sea level rise impacts

or adapting development to sea level rise projections will have implications on the use of building materials. This may have further implications on the Building Code. An understanding of such implications must be considered in the development of the guidelines.

End noteUDIA NSW appreciates the guidelines are still in a preliminary phase of development and broader sea level rise policy is a complex matter yet to be fully considered by the NSW Government.


current issues

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The program of land release in the Growth Centres continues and a number of significant milestones have already been reached in 2009.

Plans for residential development in the Growth Centres were boosted late last year with the exhibition of planning packages for the Riverstone and Alex Avenue Precincts. The draft plans came off exhibition in February, and we’re now working through the 300 or so submissions. We hope to see gazettal in the next few months.

Riverstone and Alex Avenue are primarily residential developments, with the draft plans showing the potential for 15,000 new homes supported by industrial, retail and commercial land. We want to see this mix of housing and jobs replicated in similar Precincts across both Growth Centres.

We’ve also finalised two Precinct Boundary Review Processes in Marsden Park Industrial and Area 20 Precincts. This adds a further 145 ha to be planned in Area 20 and 106 ha to Marsden Park Industrial. Precinct Planning in Area 20 is already showing potential for around 2,500 new lots. Both Precincts are well placed next to jobs and key infrastructure.

At North Kellyville, land for over 5,000 lots

Growth Centres updateIan ReynoldsDEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, STRATEGIES AND LAND RELEASE DIVISIONNSW DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

When the Growth Centres Commission merged with the Department of Planning late last year, we heard concerns from industry that this would slow down the process of planning in the Growth Centres.

We understand the impact a more efficient land release process has on development costs and industry certainty, as well as the knock-on effect this has on the viability of developing land for both housing and employment.

is rezoned and in the South West, work is progressing well on Oran Park Town Centre. It is here where the first Special Infrastructure Contribution Offset Agreement has facilitated the early construction of the $22 million Oran Park Link Road.

This is all good news in the current economic climate and supports the NSW Government’s objective to kick-start the economy, help to retain and create new jobs and attract investment and infrastructure.

Our focus has always been to streamline the planning process – and with six Precincts either rezoned or exhibited, it’s clear Precinct Planning is a successful and efficient approach.

We understand the impact a more efficient land release process has on development costs and industry certainty, as well as the knock-on effect this has on the viability of developing land for both housing and employment.

And as the Department’s plans for the Growth Centres are rolled out industry should also be aware of the protocols that have been established to streamline development after rezoning.

First and foremost is the benefit of an entire Precinct Planning package delivered concurrently. Development Control Plans

and Section 94 Local Contributions Plans are placed on exhibition alongside zoning documents, providing certainty upfront to the development industry.

We’ve also worked with Councils and other State agencies to develop protocols for issues such as biodiversity certification, Aboriginal heritage, bushfire planning and riparian management. This means these issues are considered on a wider scale saving the development process time and money.

Planning for the Growth Centres now sits under the Strategies and Land Release Division of the Department. The Division’s responsibilities are:

•Deliveringlandforhousingandemployment

•MetroandRegionalStrategies

•Integratinginfrastructureprovisionwithlandrelease.

The Department has announced that I have been appointed Deputy Director-General for this division. Previously, I was the General Manager (Operations) for the Growth Centres Commission.

I can assure stakeholders that the focus on the Growth Centres will continue – and the benefits of the work done to date in the Growth Centres will spread to other areas of the State.

ARTIST IMPRESSION OF THE ORAN PARK TOWN CENTRE

Take your office with you wherever and whenever you need it.

With an elite design, you can meet customers on site in surroundings styled to your exact requirements.

Call now: 02 4774 9333 Or visit our website at: www.eliteoffices.com.au

We’ll tailor one to your needsUnique Design Contemporary, creative space Octagonal Designs

SURROUND YOUR CLIENTS WITH STYLE

SD

D01

210

GREENING THE INNER SOUTH VICTORIA PARK & GREEN SQUARE


development feature

Playing an important part in the dramatic evolution of the Inner South are two major urban renewal projects being created by Landcom.

Green Square Town Centre, a $1.7 billion mixed-use development still in its early stages, will in coming years bring a new sustainable hub to the region. It combines designer apartments, offices, retail and extensive open space.

Down the road is its well-established sister project, the precursor of many other residential projects that were to follow in nearby locales, the $1.5 billion residential community of Victoria Park.

By setting new benchmarks in urban design and environmental planning, the two iconic developments are taking a leading role in the rejuvenation of this previously under-utilised region of Sydney.

The journey begins towards ‘Sydney’s Global Village’Landcom’s Green Square is a much anticipated project being hailed ‘once in a generation’ by industry observers. Landcom’s vision is to create a global village with a character distinctive to Sydney, yet one that evokes some of the world’s celebrated urban villages such as SoHo in New York, Shoreditch in London or Docklands in Melbourne.

In a significant project milestone, Landcom have announced that initial public domain construction is set to begin in 2010, and Paul Andersen, Landcom’s Green Square project director, is upbeat about the future prospects.

“Even before construction starts, Green Square is emerging as one of Sydney’s fastest growing hubs for progressive business,” he said. He points to the diversity of niche creative firms and international corporations which have so far made the area their base, from fashion designers such Green Square was once Sydney’s industrial heartland

– a place of warehouses, factories and smokestacks. In recent years, this area south of the CBD has begun to undergo a radical reinvention as a vibrant new centre for urban life and business.

By setting new benchmarks in urban design and environmental planning, the two iconic developments are taking a leading role in the rejuvenation of this previously under-utilised region of Sydney.


development feature

as Zimmermann and sass + bide to global brands such as Electrolux, Mercedes Benz and Audi.

“This burgeoning commerce has in turn meant that residential and retail offerings in the local area have become increasingly sophisticated,” he says. “It provides the perfect environment for a new, cosmopolitan urban village to flourish.”

When completed, the Town Centre is expected to provide 2,500 homes, prestige office accommodation and unique retail over 14 ha. The project will also be a major economic stimulant to the NSW economy, estimated to generate 4,000 direct long-term jobs and $3.2 billion to be spent in the local economy.

The planning vision for Green Square: from grey to greenIn 2006, the masterplan for this area’s new focal point, Green Square Town Centre, was developed by Landcom. According to Mr Andersen, a key challenge in planning the Town Centre is finding a way to foster a vital community in what is currently a built-up industrial area. “Our response has been to place an enormous emphasis on open space as a platform for community life,” he explains. “The centrepiece of this development will be the way the public or community areas and public art will coexist with the new architecture being created.”

Two plazas and large tracts of parklands will provide thoughtfully-designed social hubs that bring residents together at everything from market days to concerts. Behind the scenes, sustainability measures will maximise energy efficiency and reduce the Town Centre’s draw on the drinking water supply.

Location, location...Another key consideration in planning the project has been to make the most of the Town Centre’s location advantages. The development holds a strategic position in the heart of the booming CBD to Sydney Airport corridor: an engine room of the NSW economy which provides 25 per cent of Sydney’s total jobs.

Victoria Park – ‘A natural neighbourhood’Landcom’s other urban renewal effort in the Inner South is the 24.5 ha Victoria Park. This masterplanned residential development began its life in 1997 when Landcom purchased the site from the Department of Defence, previously home to Australia’s largest car manufacturing plant and Victoria Park racetrack. The development is now considered a model for the successful renewal of an under-utilised inner city precinct.

The guiding principle has been to create a “natural neighbourhood” of sustainable medium and higher-density dwellings set

amongst abundant green space. Over 40

per cent of the site is being kept in the public

domain, including four parks set across

3.7 ha that are home to 100,000 new trees

and shrubs. Among the many sustainability

initiatives was a then Sydney-first bio-

retention system for stormwater treatment

and re-use and the recycling of more than 97

per cent of demolition materials used.

Design excellence has also been a top

priority at the site. Leading architects such

as LFA, Tonkin Zulaikha Greer and Turner

+ Associates designed the buildings to

the specifications laid out in Landcom’s

Design Review Panel, following prescriptive

guidelines that encourage creative and

community-friendly structures.

“We explicitly set out to create something

visionary and forward-looking at Victoria

Park,” says Landcom’s General Manager

Urban Renewal, Stuart McCowan. “At the

same time, we have been very careful to

maintain strong links with the past history

of the site.” For example, the Tote Building

dating from circa 1900 has been carefully

restored.

New visionsThe multi-award-winning Victoria Park is

currently home to over 1,700 residents, a

number that will swell to 8,000 residents on

completion. Its latest residential offerings

demonstrate that the site continues to evolve

in innovative ways.

One unique project taking impressive

shape in the north of the site is the $200

million Garland Quarter, consisting of

terraces, apartments and boutique stores.

The emphasis here is on raising the bar in

residential design: “We enlisted celebrated

architects of the calibre of Popov, Lippman

and Tzannes to create beautifully designed

buildings that capitalised on our northern

location”, explains developer Phillip Bartlett.

Another being planned is a 14-storey vertical

seniors living village being created by

Anglican Retirement Villages.

These two ventures are typical of the

bold and imaginative approach to urban

development that continues to be fostered

by Landcom across both Victoria Park and

Green Square Town Centre.

“One of our aims was to create an urban

neighbourhood with the warmth of a traditional

leafy Australian suburb,” says Mr McCowan.

“As a result, Victoria Park’s architectural

features and landscaping have all been

designed with community top of mind.”


development feature

A major challenge for Landcom in designing Victoria Park was how to manage stormwater at such a large and complex site in a sustainable way. The smart solution that was put in place takes its inspiration from the site’s natural geography.

Historically, the local area was home to Waterloo Swamp, a wetland system which held, cleaned and released rainwater as it flowed out towards Botany Bay. Landcom’s stormwater management system mimics the function of that former wetland in what

was an Australian first.

Rain falling on the streets of Victoria Park flows into depressions located in the median strips of roadways, known as bioretention swales. Special plants and a soil filtration system remove nutrients to cleanse the water, which is stored in a holding tank in Joynton Park. The water is then purified and used in a striking water feature, supplementing the site’s irrigation system. Any water lost through evaporation is replenished from a holding pond in

Woolwash Park. The water level in the pond, which is planted with macrophytes to improve water quality, is maintained by groundwater from a bore in Nuffield Park.

When rainfall exceeds the capacity of the water feature, excess water is held in stormwater detention basins situated across the development’s public parks. These basins slow the rate of water flowing from the site, gradually releasing it into the existing stormwater infrastructure.


Victoria Park a ‘water wise’ community

development feature


industry news

The Henry Review will specifically consider the role to be played by environmental taxes and the relationship between the various taxes and the carbon pollution reduction scheme the introduction of which has been deferred until 2011.

This article looks at the use of taxes to achieve non-tax policy outcomes. The recommendations from the Henry Review aimed at achieving environmental sustainability are likely to impact upon industry.

Sustainability. It’s a word thrown about with increasing frequency in this age of climate change and environmental responsibility. What does it really mean? To most, it means achieving economic outcomes and growth without detriment to the environment. In an unchecked market economy this is not always the case, and economic outcomes often are achieved at a cost to the environment. Regulation of the environmental impacts is one solution but this requires active enforcement. An alternative (or complementary) solution is to influence behaviours through the tax-transfer system.

The Tax-Transfer SystemThe tax-transfer system is fundamental to Australia’s economic infrastructure. It is the means by which the Government raises revenue (the tax system), and redistributes income (the transfer system). An example of the tax-transfer system is the provision of unemployment benefits by Centrelink funded by tax revenue.

Raising revenue and redistributing income affect behaviour in some way. the tax-transfer system (e.g. subsidies or concessions) can be used to achieve non-tax policy objectives by encouraging behaviours that are beneficial to society.

The Henry ReviewThe Review of Australia’s Tax System (known as the Henry Review) will “examine and make recommendations to create a tax structure that will position Australia to deal with the…environmental challenges of the 21st century”.

With such a focus on environmental sustainability, it is likely the Henry Review will make a number of significant recommendations to address the negative external costs of various

activities and behaviours, such as polluting or energy inefficiency.

The Review’s sustainability focusIn the Australia’s Future Taxation System – Consultation Paper, questions regarding the tax-transfer impacts on the environment are specifically addressed (in Section 13). The Consultation Paper notes that, whilst “…most environmental damage has resulted from agricultural development and the exploitation of native forests, most future damage is expected to occur around urban areas and water resources”. This hints at a shift in focus from addressing environmental issues in rural and regional areas to those in urban developments. What form the recommendations arising from this redirected focus may take is unknown, but the Consultation Paper does highlight some of the key points coming through in submissions.

Key points in submissionsThe Review Panel, through the Consultation Paper, has summarised the “key messages” from submissions. Many submissions suggest that a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme alone will be insufficient to meet Australia’s emissions targets. Tax concessions should be implemented to achieve energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy use. Also suggested is a range of tax concessions to address problems such as water use efficiency.

Suggestions include introducing additional or accelerated depreciation for energy efficient fittings and fixtures in new buildings. Where existing buildings are refurbished to meet high environmental standards, even greater concessions may be available to overcome the barriers associated with introducing eco-efficient investments.

There also is suggestion that tax concessions associated with activities that have adverse environmental consequences will be removed. An example provided is the fuel tax credit scheme which is seen by many as an incentive to generate carbon emissions.

With a likely focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation, the most recent Consultation Paper suggests that developers can expect to see some significant

taxation changes affecting the industry.

Where to now?The consultation process concluded on 1 May 2009 and the Review Panel is due to make its final recommendations arising from the Review to the Federal Government by the end of 2009. The Government has indicated it will act quickly on the recommendations made by the Henry Review.

Impact for DevelopersWhat about sustainability initiatives and the impact for developers? The Review Panel acknowledges that tax-transfer approaches often are not the most efficient way to achieve Government and social policies. Notwithstanding this, the Review Panel indicates an increased use of the tax-transfer system to achieve environmental objectives. It also is likely many environmental issues will continue to be addressed by way of regulation.

Given that the Review Panel is commissioning research on the impact that the tax-transfer system has on the environment, it is highly likely there will be a raft of taxes recommended and tax concessions introduced affecting urban industry and development on completion of the Review in December 2009. As to what form these recommendations will take, and how they will affect developers, is not yet known.

From the flavour of the submissions, the tax concessions are likely to focus on energy efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy initiatives. For developers, this could mean increased deductions or accelerated depreciation for the installation of energy efficient materials and water-efficient landscaping design. Other tax concessions, particularly fuel tax credits, could be removed or reduced which will affect any business using fuel other than in on-road applications.

Whilst this remains conjecture at this stage, it is very likely the Henry Review will prefer to recommend more tax concessions rather than introduce additional taxes to address environmental sustainability issues. These concessions should be readily accessible to developers adopting sustainable practices and methods.

[email protected]

Finding a balance – Environmental Sustainability and the Henry ReviewJon Ellwood EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WALTERTURNBULL

In May 2008, the Federal Government announced the most comprehensive review of Australia’s taxation system in more than 50 years.

SC

D01

187


industry news

“BioBanking should provide greater certainty for developers,” says Tom Grosskopf, Director Landscapes and Ecosystems Conservation at the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC).

“The scientific methodology underpinning the scheme will ensure consistent results when assessing threatened species, providing greater certainty for developers during the development process.

“The scheme became fully operational with the accreditation of the first BioBanking Assessors,” Mr Grosskopf said. “Developers and landholders must use one of these accredited assessors to undertake the assessment of their sites. There are now 27 accredited BioBanking Assessors throughout NSW.”

BioBanking is a market-based scheme that involves:

• landholdersgeneratingbiodiversitycreditsfrom biobank sites, and

• purchasers,suchasdeveloperswhoneed to ‘offset’ biodiversity loss from a development site, buying the credits.

The landholder enters into a biobanking agreement with DECC for their biobanking site, while developers apply to DECC for a biobanking statement for their development site.

“Developers can use BioBanking as a tool to better plan projects and identify suitable land for future development proposals. Different scenarios can be run through the BioBanking Credit Calculator to determine the most beneficial and cost-effective

BioBanking UpdateBioBanking is now fully operational and expecting its first transactions soon. BioBanking, the NSW Government’s Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme, aims to streamline the threatened species assessment process for developers while improving overall biodiversity outcomes.

development option,” Mr Grosskopf said. The calculator is available for free on the DECC website.

“One advantage for developers is that offsets can be located in another area with similar vegetation, minimising costs for developers while maximising biodiversity gains. The BioBanking Credit Calculator produces a report detailing the vegetation types and regions where the offsets can be located,” Mr Grosskopf said.

“The same methodology and calculator is used to determine the credits created on a biobank site. Another advantage for developers is the certainty provided by a biobanking statement. Consent authorities have to accept that the requirements for threatened species in relation to s. 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 (EP&A Act) have been met if a biobanking statement has been issued for a development site.

“Also, a biobanking statement cannot be appealed in the Land and Environment Court.”

The developer is also freed of any ongoing responsibility to manage the offset site as the purchase of credits funds a landholder to manage the land.

“BioBanking should reduce the amount of time taken for the threatened species aspects of the development approval process,” Mr Grosskopf said.

“There should be less time spent negotiating offsets as the calculator determines the credits required and DECC aims to process

applications for a biobanking statement within 28 to 42 days depending on the complexity of the application.”

BioBanking for developersBioBanking is a voluntary alternative to the current threatened species assessment of significance process. A biobanking statement can be obtained for development assessed under Parts 3A, 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act.

To obtain a biobanking statement the developer must meet the ‘improve or maintain test’ for biodiversity values by:

• minimisingtheimpactonbiodiversityvalues through on-site measures

• avoiding‘redflag’areas(areasthatareimportant for biodiversity conservation and that cannot be easily replaced) or applying for a red flag variation in some circumstances

• purchasingtherequirednumberandtypeof credits to offset biodiversity loss on the development site and then retiring the credits so they cannot be traded again.

The assessment processBefore applying for a biobanking statement, the development site has to be assessed. Assessments must be undertaken by an accredited BioBanking Assessor (a list is available on the website).The BioBanking Assessor produces a credit report that is submitted with the application for a biobanking statement. The credits generated from each development site will vary as each site has different vegetation types, conditions and threatened species.

One advantage for developers is that offsets can be located in another area with similar vegetation, minimising costs for developers while maximising biodiversity gains.


industry news

Applying for a biobanking statementWhen the assessment has been completed, an application for a biobanking statement is made to DECC. If the application is approved, DECC registers the biobanking statement specifying the on-site actions that must be carried out, and the number and type of credits that must be purchased and retired before development commences.

The consent authorityThe biobanking statement is provided to the consent authority with a development application. The consent authority cannot request further biodiversity information if a biobanking statement is provided. A biobanking statement is valid for two years from the date of issue.

The consent authority must include the conditions of the biobanking statement in the development consent. When a biobanking statement is incorporated in a development consent, the credit requirements remain valid until the development consent lapses.

Purchasing creditsDevelopers can purchase their required credits from biobank site owners or other owners of biodiversity credits. It is likely that credits may need to be purchased from more than one seller. If a developer buys credits to offset the effects of a development site, they must retire them so they cannot be traded again. Developers, or anyone else, can also buy credits to keep for future offsets or to re-sell at a later date.

The biobanking public register lists biodiversity credits available for sale and biobank site expressions of interest. If an expression of interest matches a developer’s needs, the developer may approach the landowner and enter into an option to purchase credits after an assessment is undertaken and a biobanking agreement granted.

Developers can publicise the credits they require through the ‘list of wanted credits’ on the website.

How much is a credit worth?As BioBanking is a market-based scheme, demand from purchasers and amount of supply will affect the value of credits. The biobanking public register lists expressions of interest, credits available for sale and all past credit transactions, which may help inform negotiations regarding the price of credits.

The condition of the vegetation on a biobank site will affect the cost of managing the site and therefore the landholder will take this into consideration when pricing their credits. Landholders, or other credit owners, are also allowed to include a profit margin into their credit price.

For more information on BioBanking, visit www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking or email [email protected].

The new BioBanking processes are now in place, several consultants have been accredited to undertake formal assessments, but is it a viable alternative – will it make approvals simpler, what are the timeframes, and what will it cost?

BioBanking sits within a legal framework which can provide greater certainty to developers, without the possibility of legal challenges to BioBanking flora and fauna approvals. In short, the number of biodiversity credits required by a development is assessed by an accredited assessor, and the credits required are purchased and retired, which ‘turns off’ the requirements of s5A of the EP&A Act that relate to the assessment of threatened species.

No other approvals are granted, so all other approvals (eg. SEPP, REP, Water Management Act, Fisheries Management Act), must still be obtained. An approval authority cannot, however, ‘impose conditions that are inconsistent with the conditions of the BioBanking statement...’. Federal approvals, if required, will also need to be acquired separately. However, there are ongoing negotiations with the Federal Government regarding the recognition of BioBanking as an assessment option.

BioBanking also ‘turns off’ the requirement to survey for many fauna species, as many are predicted to occur. In some circumstances, this will reduce assessment costs and timeframes. However, where survey is required, it must be performed during specific months. The BioBanking field methodology also differs to the traditional process, so if an extensive traditional survey has already been performed it may not be useful. However, BioBanking survey data can be used in a traditional assessment, although additional fauna survey would likely be required if converting from Biobanking to a traditional pathway.

‘Red flags’ can also occur, where endangered ecological communities or threatened species will be affected. A development must either avoid impacts on

all ‘red flags’, or seek a variation to the ‘red flag’ status. BioBanking can be used for Part 3A Major Projects and the Minister for Planning has discretion regarding impacts to ‘red flags’, and can grant approvals that impact on ‘red flag’ areas.

These issues mean that a due diligence assessment early in the development proposal is highly recommended. In particular, considering:

Is it worth considering BioBanking?

If the development clearly wouldn’t be considered to be a ‘significant impact’ under the 7-part test assessment for threatened species and ecological communities, that current pathway could be easier and simpler. If, however, negotiations on ecological matters are anticipated, BioBanking may offer advantages.

Is there likely to be BioBanking ‘red flags’ for the development?

Not all developments will generate ‘red flags’, even if threatened species are known to be present. This will need to be assessed on a site by site basis.

Can the red flags be avoided, or is it likely that a variation will be granted?

Seeking to vary a red flag will require discussions with DECC and will be assessed on their merit.

Indicative credits

A rough indication of the number of credits (or offset ratio) can be generated after the vegetation types and indicative conditions are known for a site (i.e. prior to detailed field survey). This will give an indication of whether BioBanking will be economically feasible for the site and proposal.

Availability and cost of credits

Some credits can be sourced from many areas, whereas other credits will be very restrictive and difficult to source. The availability of credits and their costs should be assessed early. Until credit trading becomes established practice, purchase costs will be hard to advise, however, the location, condition, and likely credit types of the development site can be used to generate a good indication.

BioBanking – will it work for my site?By Robert HumphriesMANAGER BIOBANKING AND OFFSETS PROGRAMS, ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA


industry news

This draft legislation has some distance to go before it is finalised, with criticism directed at the Federal Government for targets considered too low, the availability of free permits for big polluters and businesses facing an increase in their operating costs.

In this article for the Digest, Grant Parker and Kim Glassborow from Holding Redlich discuss the Scheme’s structure, summarise the Government assistance to certain sectors and considers what impacts it is expected to have on developers.

“Climate change presents a risk to the survival of the human race and other species ... it is, a deadly serious issue. It has been increasingly under public scrutiny for some years”.

Biscoe J in Walker v Minister for Planning (2007) 157 LGERA 124 at 161

Background There is no doubt that climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is now a global problem.

One of the Federal Government’s responses to this global problem is the introduction of a new national ‘cap and trade’ emissions scheme called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). On 10 March 2009, the Federal Government released the draft CRPS legislation. This followed the release of the Government’s White Paper on the CPRS in December 2008. The White Paper’s objective was to set out the Government’s policy regarding the structure of the CPRS, including the GHG reduction targets under it. The objective of the CPRS is to achieve reductions in Australia’s GHG emissions in a way that meets the Government’s target of reducing GHG emissions to 60 per cent below year 2000 levels by 2050.

Coverage under the CPRS The aim is for the CPRS to apply to the larger GHG emitters, being facilities that have direct GHG emissions of 25,000 tonnes or more of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. The GHGs caught under the CPRS are emissions of carbon dioxide, methane,

nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, specified hydrofluorocarbons and specified perfluorocarbons.

GHG emissions from the following sectors will be covered by the CPRS:

• stationaryenergy

• transport

• industrialprocesses

• waste

• fugitiveemissions.

Agriculture will be included in the CPRS at a later date but not before 2015.

GHG emissions in the transport sector will be treated differently from those in the other covered sectors. In the transport sector, the CPRS obligations will be placed on the upstream suppliers of transport fuels rather than on those directly emitting from the use of such fuels.

Scheme caps and permits The CPRS will set a national annual cap on GHG emissions from the covered sectors. The Government will outline the caps at least fove years in advance with the caps for the first five years to be announced in early 2010.

Liable entities will need to acquire and surrender a permit, known as an Australian Emissions Unit (AEU), for every tonne of GHG emissions generated in a financial year. The total number of AEUs available for that year will be equal to the national cap. If, for example, the cap limits emissions to 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in that year, there will be 200 million AEUs issued for that year.

AEUs will be tradeable and will not have an expiry date (allowing AEUs acquired in one year to be surrendered in later years). The price of AEUs will be set by the market, subject to a cap of $40 per tonne until 2015 (subject to indexation at 5 per cent real). The Government has indicated that the likely opening AEU price will be $25 per tonne. The Government intends to auction AEUs on a monthly basis. Initially, approximately 70 per cent of AEUs will be auctioned with the rest to be allocated as free AEUs (see

the “Application of the CPRS to developers” section below).

Application of the CPRS to developers The CPRS is unlikely to apply directly to developers given the sectors covered and the GHG emission thresholds. However, the CPRS may have a significant impact on development projects. The most likely impact will be increased development costs and uncertainty surrounding those increased costs.

Effect on building product pricesThe producers of building products such as cement, steel, bricks, glass and aluminium are likely to be required to hold AEUs. A number of these producers will be entitled to free AEUs as emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries, such assistance being intended to dissuade such producers from moving their production off-shore. To qualify for EITE assistance:

• thecombinedvalueofexportsandimportsfor the relevant product from all producers must exceed 10 per cent of the value of domestic production from all producers in any year from 2004/05 to 2007/08 (or there must be a demonstrated inability to increase costs due to the potential for international competition); and

• theemissionsintensityoftheactivityproducing the product on an industry-wide weighted average must exceed 1,000 tonnes of CO2e per million dollars of revenue (or exceed 3,000 tonnes of CO2e per million dollars of value added).

The rate of EITE assistance will be:

• freeAEUsfor60percentoftheGHGemissions of the liable entity (subject to adjustment to accord with industry averages) where the emissions intensity is between 1,000t CO2e/$ million revenue (or 3,000t CO2e/$ million value added) and 1,999t CO2e/$ million revenue (or 5,999t CO2e/$ million value added); or

• freeAEUsfor90percentoftheGHGemissions of the liable entity (subject to adjustment to accord with industry averages) where the emissions intensity is equal to or greater than 2,000t CO2e/$

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – what is it and how will it affect developers?Grant Parker, PARTNER and Kim Glassborow, LAWYER, HOLDING REDLICH

The introduction in March this year of draft legislation for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme takes Australia one step further towards implementing a national scheme aimed at reducing pollution caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful greenhouse gases.


million revenue (or 6,000t CO2e/$ million value added).

EITE assistance will be reduced by 1.3 per cent per year and will be reviewed at five yearly intervals. As a consequence of the complexity of the eligibility rules and rates of EITE assistance, developers are likely to face uncertainty regarding the price of building products whose producers are required to hold AEUs under the CPRS. It is possible that tenderers for building projects will not be willing to fix the price for such products and instead seek to adjust these prices once the impact of the CPRS on prices is known.

Effect on electricity pricesThe CPRS will require electricity generators to hold AEUs for those generation facilities whose annual direct GHG emissions are equal to or exceed 25,000t CO2e. As the majority of electricity generated in New South Wales is from coal-fired generators, those electricity generators in NSW are likely to need to hold AEUs. The Government will provide free AEUs to coal-fired electricity generators until July 2015 (under an arrangement to be known as the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme (ESAS)). After that date, those generators will be required to purchase all AEUs required to meet their obligations under the CPRS.

In order to be eligible for ESAS assistance, the emissions intensity of the generator between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2007 must exceed 0.86 tonnes of CO2e per megawatt-hour of electricity generated (with provision to be made for generators not operational by 1 July 2004). The level of ESAS assistance will be capped at 26.14 million AEUs per year over the five year life of the ESAS. An eligible generator’s proportion of that assistance will be determined by multiplying the result of the following formula by the annual cap:

Emissions intensity of generator exceeding 0.86t CO2e/ GWh x output of generator from

1/7/04 to 30/6/07

Sum of calculation above in formula for all generators

The extent to which the ESAS will limit increased electricity prices as a result of the CPRS is unclear. However, it is clear that electricity generated from renewable sources will not need to be priced to include the cost of AEUs as these forms of generation will not be subject to the CPRS. The possible impact of the CPRS on electricity prices for electricity generated from coal-fired generators should cause developers to further consider the attractiveness of ‘greener’ sources of electricity such as GreenPower.

If increased electricity prices do occur as a result of the introduction of the CPRS, this is likely to result in a renewed focus on the energy efficiency of buildings due to the

increased cost of outgoings. Consequently, developers may see even more potential tenants seeking to occupy those buildings which have or are targeting 4 to 5 star NABERS Energy ratings. Building owners will also need to consider whether net or gross leases are more suitable in an environment where electricity prices are tipped to rise under the CPRS.

Effect on costs of waste disposalGHG emissions from landfill facilities will be covered by the CPRS (excluding those from facilities which closed prior to 30 June 2008). However ‘legacy’ emissions from waste deposited in landfills prior to 1 July 2008 will not be included in the CPRS until 1 July 2018.

While the general threshold for liability under the CPRS is 25,000t CO2e annually for a facility, landfill facilities are subject to a lower threshold of 10,000t CO2e where a facility is operating in proximity to another operating landfill facility. The Government is yet to announce the proximity but an example distance of 80 kilometres was used in the White Paper. The threshold will rise to 25,000t CO2e per year once the landfill facility has been closed for 10 years.

As no Government assistance is provided to the waste industry under the CPRS, the costs of waste disposal are likely to increase (particularly for those substances which contribute to GHG emissions from landfill facilities). The inclusion of emissions from waste deposited since 1 July 2008 and the inclusion of ‘legacy’ emissions from 2018 mean that landfill operators will have to recover the cost of holding AEUs for these emissions from current users of their facilities.

Effect on transport costsAs outlined above, upstream fuel suppliers will be liable to meet the CPRS obligations in the transport sector. Accordingly, suppliers incurring costs to meet those obligations, being primarily the cost of holding AEUs, will seek to recover those costs by increasing the price at which the relevant fuel is supplied. However, the Government has agreed to cut fuel taxes on a ‘cent-for-cent’ basis until July 2013 to offset the price impact on fuel of the introduction of the CPRS. The Government will review this adjustment mechanism at the end of this three year period.

ConclusionWhile the final form of the legislation may differ from that proposed in the White Paper and included in the draft legislation, developers should now be preparing for the increased costs likely to arise from the implementation of the CPRS.

For more information, contact: Grant Parker [email protected]

Kim Glassborow [email protected] S

CD

0117

0


industry news

The full version of this article is available in the Members Only section of the UDIA NSW website: www.udia-nsw.com.au.

Further detail of the CPRS is set out in the article ‘The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - what is it and how will it affect developers’ at page 20.

The Garnaut Final Report – proposed changesOn 30 September 2008 Professor Ross Garnaut released the Final Report of his Climate Change Review which outlines three possible carbon reduction targets for Australia:

1 for Australia to reduce its entitlements to emissions to 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020;

2 for Australia to reduce its entitlements to emissions to 10 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020; and

3 for Australia to reduce its entitlements to emissions to 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.

The international climate change meeting in Copenhagen later this year is a key element to deciding which of Professor Garnaut’s recommendations will be adopted.

“If things go well, very well, Copenhagen will be the end of one process and the beginning of others that will lead, over time, to effective global mitigation at a level that reduces risks of a dangerous kind to an extent that seems acceptable to most informed people”.

Garnaut emissions trading scheme (ETS)Professor Garnaut recommends the introduction of a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) as the most suitable means for Australia to reduce its emissions and contribute to the global mitigation of dangerous climate change.1

Whilst Professor Garnaut recommends that the ETS begin operation in 2010, he suggests that an unrestrained fully market-based ETS not commence until 2012.

Background to the Carbon Pollution Reduction SchemeNoni Shannon GILBERT & TOBIN

With the announcement on 4 May 2009 that the commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will be delayed to 1 July 2011, and that there will be other significant changes, such as fixed price permits for the initial period and a potential increase in the reduction target to 25% of 2000 levels, it is an opportune time to look back to the findings of the Garnaut Final Review and the Commonwealth Government’s detailed policy response.

Garnaut compensation proposalProfessor Garnaut’s conclusions in relation to compensation have remained consistent throughout the review process. However, it is in this area that the Government’s position has diverged the most from the proposals set out in the Final Review.

Households: As the effects of a carbon pricing regime, such as an ETS, falls disproportionately on low income households Professor Garnaut has recommended that at least half of the proceeds from the sale of permits be allocated to households, focusing on the bottom half of the income distribution.2

EITEs: One of the most controversial aspects of the ETS is the approach that will be taken in relation to emission-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs). If an ETS is introduced into Australia in the absence of a global agreement, a potential distortion arises. If EITEs firms are subject to a higher emissions price in Australia than they would be in other countries, and they were unable to pass this price rise on, there may be sufficient reason for them to relocate in whole or part to countries with fewer

constraints. This phenomenon has been termed “carbon leakage”.

Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme: The Green Paper has also proposed to provide a limited amount of direct assistance to existing coal-fired electricity generators to ameliorate the risk of adversely affecting the investment environment

White Paper targetsThe Government’s White Paper for the CPRS outlines and provides detail on the (then) final design of the CPRS, the medium term carbon reduction target range and a number of supporting policies, initiatives and programs.

The White Paper committed Australia to a medium term target range of a 5 - 15% reduction in greenhouse gases below 2000 levels by the end of 2020.

The Target has been established prior to international negotiations at the Copenhagen Conference scheduled for late 2009. It is envisaged that post-Kyoto 2012 emission reduction commitments will be agreed at an international level at the Copenhagen Conference. On this basis, the Government


industry news

indicated Australia could be committed to a Target range rather than a set target to retain flexibility for international negotiations at the Copenhagen Conference and to provide guidance to business and households about the likely level of emissions reductions required.

Indicative Targets will be updated every year so that at least five years guidance is available at all times. The first indicative national emissions trajectory will be:

• in2010-11,109%of2000levels;

• in2011-12,108%of2000levels;

• in2012-13,107%of2000levels.

The Government reaffirmed its longer term commitment to a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases below 2000 levels by the end of 2050 but left open the possibility of deeper emission cuts after 2020 if the international community agrees to maintain the global levels of CO2-e at a level of 450 parts per million.

White Paper CPRS modelThe Government committed to a cap and trade model for an ETS commencing on 1 July 2010. This has now been extended by one year to 1 July 2011 as per the Prime Ministerial announcement on 4 May 2009.

a) Who is covered?

The Scheme will involve mandatory obligations for around 1000 entities (Liable Entities) and will cover around 75% of Australia’s emissions and include all six greenhouse gases (GHGs) covered under the Kyoto Protocol.

The White Paper proposed two categories of Liable Entities under the CPRS, being entities who are liable for a facility that directly produces emissions above a certain threshold and entities that are

specifically defined as upstream Liable Entities (for example, upstream suppliers of liquid fuels such as gasoline used for domestic purposes).

b) Buying permits

i) Sourcing permits

There will be no restrictions on who may purchase or hold a permit under the CPRS and there will be a wide range of permit sources for Liable Entities to draw from.

ii) Auctioning

A large proportion of the carbon pollution permits will be auctioned from the commencement of the CPRS.

The auctioning process will be a simultaneous ascending clock auction, with an option to submit a proxy bid in a ‘sealed bid format’. The only limitation on participation in these auctions will be the lodgement of a security deposit. Auctions will be held 12 times throughout the year with the first auction taking place as early as 2010. This will be prior to the commencement of the CPRS. Entities who have received free permits may sell their permits at the auctions occurring in 2010 and 2011.

iii) Carbon Price

As the CPRS is substantively a market-based mechanism the setting of the carbon price will vary according to market movements in the price of carbon. The CPRS has been designed to limit the quantity of emissions whilst allowing the market to flexibly set the carbon price.

c) Surrendering Permits

The White Paper stated that the Government’s aim was to commence the CPRS on 1 July 2010 which would be the starting date of the first reporting year. Liable Entities will be required to report emissions to the CPRS regulator by 31 October of each year following the reporting (financial) year. The final date for the annual surrender of permits will be 15 December each year.

The CPRS has been designed to link with international markets and schemes which will enable Liable Entities to surrender other compliance permits to meet their obligations, for example under the Kyoto CDM and JI mechanisms.

The Government will consider the scope for domestic offsets in 2013. The Government will also investigate, in consultation with Indigenous land managers, the possibility of forestry opportunities under the Scheme, for example credit for reductions in savanna burning.

If an inadequate number of permits are surrendered for any given reporting year, an administrative penalty will be imposed on the Liable Entity.

The CPRS regulator will also be empowered

to investigate and enforce CPRS obligations through a range of mechanisms including civil penalty and criminal provisions.

White paper industry assistance packaged) Assistance to Emission Intensive Trade

Exposed Industries

Assistance will be available for EITEs to provide transitional support to prevent carbon leakage in Australia.

e) Climate Change Action Fund

The Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF) has been established to ensure the smooth transition to the CPRS for industries who are not entitled to the free allocation of permits under the EITE assistance scheme.

The CCAF will include:

•Stream 1: $130 million over 5 years for information programs for community and larger industrial business;

•Stream 2: investment in energy efficiency schemes and low emission technologies principally with incentives to invest in low emission technology;

•Stream 3: funds for structural adjustment assistance for workers, communities and regions; and

•Stream 4: funds for the coal sector to facilitate the adjustment to the CPRS including $750 million from 2010 to 2015.

A Stakeholder Consultative Committee, comprising business, environmental and community stakeholders, will be established to advise the Minister in relation to applications and proposals.

f) Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme

The Government has committed to further allocation assistance for coal-fired generators under the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme (ESAS). The level of assistance will be assessed according to a methodology that weighs assistance by the:

• historicalenergyoutputofthegenerator,measured as the electricity generated by the asset between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2007; and

• extentbywhichtheSchemeregulator’sestimate of the emission intensity of the generator (over the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007) exceeds the Government’s threshold level of emission intensity (0.86 tonnes of CO2-e per megawatt hour of electricity generated).

It is estimated that $3.9 billion will be allocated to the ESAS over 5 years. There are complex provisions regarding eligibility for assistance and the degree of assistance that will be provided.

THE AUTHOR WOULD LIKE TO THANK JULIA GREEN AND CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE.

1 Final Report, 13.2.3, p 310

2 Final Report, Chapter 16, p 385

The Government will consider the scope for domestic offsets in 2013. The Government will also investigate, in consultation with Indigenous land managers, the possibility of forestry opportunities under the Scheme, for example credit for reductions in savanna burning.


industry news

Bushfires of similar intensity to those of Black Saturday have occurred in NSW, and experts agree they will occur again. There is, however, less certainty about the potential frequency and magnitude of such impacts at our development/bushland interface. These potential impacts depend on many factors including the intensity of fire, building design and maintenance, the quality of the bushfire protection systems, and emergency and evacuation procedures.

The potential intensity of a bushfire can be predicted using slope, vegetation and weather data. These data show that the majority of our urban bushland interface is exposed to weather conditions every year that have the potential to produce a bushfire of an uncontrollable intensity.

Two major NSW studies1 of our development /bushland interface concluded that the entire 282 km interface at Wollongong City, and a 170 km interface on the southern side of Blue Mountains City, had the right conditions every year to carry bushfire intensities that were uncontrollable.

Climate change is predicted to exacerbate the magnitude and frequency of extreme fire weather for many of our developed areas. As a result it is likely a greater number of higher intensity bushfires will impact urban and rural development.

Anecdotal information from Victoria suggests

In the aftermath of the Victorian bushfire tragedy, some are asking whether similar bushfire impacts are likely in NSW and whether we are adequately prepared.

Black Saturday, Victorian Bushfires – can it happen in NSW?Rod Rose, DIRECTOR - BUSHFIRE and David Peterson, PRINCIPAL BUSHFIRE CONSULTANT, ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA

that most of the destroyed buildings were constructed prior to the introduction of improved bushfire planning laws. Older developments at the bushland interface, in Victoria and NSW, are by far the most vulnerable to bushfire. Whilst improving the bushfire protection measures of older buildings may sometimes be difficult, those living in higher bushfire risk situations must personally take steps to reduce their risk. Community wide action is important, but a personal response is considered essential.

The good news is that in NSW no houses built under the new bushfire protection planning laws introduced in 2002 have been lost to bushfire. Unfortunately, newer housing is a small percentage of our urban and rural bushland interface, and this factor, combined with the anticipated increase in

high intensity fire events, means that future losses of NSW housing built prior to 2002 are highly likely. To address this, significant retrospective changes to both building design and surrounding landscapes, would be required, along with a reliable annual maintenance regime.

An enormous amount is learned from bushfires of the magnitude of those on Black Saturday and further changes to bushfire protection design in NSW is considered likely. For new development this may not be a dramatic change; for older style development the challenges are significant.

1 Bushfire and Environmental Services P/L (BES) studies in 2003 (Wollongong City) and 1998 (Blue Mountains City). BES is now part of Eco Logical Australia P/L.

An enormous amount is learned from bushfires of the magnitude of those on Black Saturday and further changes to bushfire protection design in NSW is considered likely.


industry news

A green choiceLightweight structures in building design and material selection

Jeff Trevarthen CSR PANEL SYSTEMS

This framework can also influence the methods of manufacture and may encourage prefabricated construction off-site as a means of improving efficiency, reducing waste and increasing recycling through design for future disassembly. In countries where the population and demand for building materials is high, manufacturers have developed prefabricated systems and then bolted them together on site. This has led to revolution in lightweight construction methods helping to reduce the environmental load per building.

In Australia, there has been a move toward lightweight construction however the nation still lags behind the rest of the world in terms of the use of heavyweight materials such as bricks and precast concrete. Recently there have been increased discussions on the role of thermal mass in the design of buildings, and whilst this article does not discuss this in detail, it is important to note a few points.

Role of thermal massManufacturing products with thermal mass requires more energy and produces more greenhouse gases than equivalent lightweight materials. Thermal mass is more effective when used inside a structure in order to stabilise room temperature and must be able to take advantage of solar heat gain in winter and minimise this during summer.

Cost savingsMany leading developers and builders in Australia have made the move to lightweight construction in high rise multi level framed buildings. This design methodology influences the project in a variety of areas, providing cost savings and can also increase the fire, thermal and acoustic performance of the building.

Areas where cost savings can be achieved are:

• Materialvolume–lessreinforcementandconcrete in the slab, columns, transfer beams and foundations.

• Designflexibility–longerclearspans.

• Increasedletable/liveablefloorarea–slender external / internal walls.

• Speedofconstruction–modularconstruction approach allows rapid installation as well as less waste.

• Lesscraneage–lightweightgenerallymeans more m2 and less lifts of cranes and hoists on site. Also smaller cranes are required which leads to savings.

• Deliverytimes–environmentalsavingsonrunning vehicles with larger and heavier loads.

• Improvedtradecontinuitythroughmultiskilled installation teams increasing their scope of works.

Role in refurbishment Lightweight materials (and building design) also have a significant role in the refurbishment or conversion of existing older style building. Most major cities in Australia have large areas that are built on foundations or existing structures that are simply not able to take heavy construction materials. Good environmental practice utilises existing structures, and replaces or upgrades only what is necessary to achieve a new structure fit for use. In these projects lightweight panel systems for facades, internal walls and floors are regarded as good environment design management.

Delivery of materialsBuildings are increasingly being constructed from an expanding and fragmented range of materials. Consideration must be given to the impact of getting all these materials to the building site in order to construct the building with the minimal impact on the environment. The cost of transport plus the energy consumed to deliver materials are further reduced when lightweight materials are used. Waste removal must also be taken into account. Increasingly materials are being designed to be reused at their end of life and an important factor in this is the energy required to break them down to reuse them. Often lightweight materials outscore heavy building materials on this account also.

Making the choiceObviously traditional heavy building materials are still required in many building situations where lightweight products are not practical

The choice and sourcing of building materials can have a significant environmental impact on a building. To achieve a better environmental outcome (simply put – a reduced environmental load) for the project, specific directives and policies can be set that create the framework for a sustainable design, and ultimately influence the selection of materials.

(sub structure and load bearing elements for example). Rather than continuing to do what we have always done, there is an opportunity to integrate lightweight building materials into our designs leading to a better environmental outcome and a reduction in costs.

It takes effort to research and make the change to a light weight structure however the endeavour has proved worthwhile for many leading developers, builders, architects, engineers and consultants. By considering a reduction in your total building weight there is the potential to not only save money for your clients but also contribute to a lower environmental foot print, offering a better outcome for our community.

In Australia, there has been a move toward lightweight construction however the nation still lags behind the rest of the world in terms of the use of heavyweight materials such as bricks and precast concrete.


industry news

Four key principles were developed to guide its activities:

• Deliverasustainablequalityoflife

• Conserveresources

• Minimisetheimpactonbiodiversity

• Minimisepollution.

In the early days, Landcom’s focus was on environmental initiatives, in part because the Act specifies compliance with other legislation to protect the environment through ecologically sustainable development. This is why the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) performance indicators for projects, which were set in 2001-2002, include many indicators with specific targets for environmental performance including water cycle management, energy efficient design, sustainable energy technology, native vegetation and riparian corridor management. The environmental initiatives that were introduced at that time are now considered standard practice in Landcom business, and indeed across the development industry.

Landcom began to look strategically at its social sustainability policy in 2004. At that time it had a range of discrete community-based or social initiatives in place (the Welcome Program, the Moderate Income Housing Policy and community consultation process) but it did not have any embedded strategic social planning processes in place.

Landcom’s Social Sustainability Policy was prepared based on the social determinants of health and their application to land use. Overarching objectives were set around:

• achievingmixedcommunitiesthroughhousing and land use diversity

• providinghouseholdproductthatwillenable people to remain within their existing area as they age

• providinghousingformoderateincomeearners

• social,physicalandculturalintegrationwiththe existing community

• accessbetweennewandexistingareas

Achieving social, economic and environmental goals through housing diversityAnna Petersen, SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER and Anna Chubb, POLICY MANAGER, LANDCOM

Landcom began to formally define its sustainability charter when it was corporatised in 2001. The Landcom Corporation Act 2001 obliges it to practice sustainable development. The principal objectives under the Act specify its duties in protecting the environment and being socially responsible while conducting an economically successful business.

THE SUSTAINABILITY MODEL: ACHIEVING VIABILITY, LIVEABILITY AND EQUITY

(ADAPTED FROM ‘HEALTHY CITY MODEL’ FROM TREVOR HANCOCK, HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL)

• contributingtowardscommunityinfrastructure which addresses community needs

• benefitingexistingcommunitymembersaswell as new.

Landcom’s social sustainability objectives relate also to economic and environmental outcomes. The social policy also sets out the social planning process that is now followed for all new projects.

Landcom’s Sustainability ModelSustainable development has three inputs: the environment, the economy, and the community.

When people in the development industry talk about sustainability, often they are referring to the interplay of the environment and the economy – the balancing of economic development with the need for environmental protection and resource conservation. Landcom aims to consider equally the relationship between the environment and community, and between the community and economy. Ultimately, sustainable development is development that balances outcomes for all three.

The Sustainability Model shown illustrates the relationships. Development that meets


industry news

environmental and economic needs is described as viable; that which meets environmental and community needs is described as liveable; and that which meets community and economic needs is described as equitable. Sustainable development is development that achieves a balance between viability, liveability and equity.

Landcom is using this model to guide its business and work program to strengthen the connections between economic, environmental and community outcomes, and maintain Landcom’s position as an innovator and leader in sustainable development. Landcom’s new Housing Diversity Guide is focussed on balancing all these objectives.

The Housing Diversity GuideLandcom has produced a Housing Diversity Guide to make it easier, faster and more cost effective to deliver a wide range of housing types in all of its projects. All Landcom projects are expected to provide for a diverse range of households. The Sustainability Model illustrates how Housing Diversity achieves economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives.

Economic objectives are achieved through:

• Housingaffordability–smallerparcelsofland and smaller dwellings can reduce the cost of the house and land package considerably, making it achievable for families earning average household incomes to purchase their own home.

• Contributiontoaffordableliving–providinggreater housing diversity in existing urban areas will mean that people will have increased choice to live closer to work, therefore reducing other costs such as transport.

• Nosubsidiesarerequiredtounderpinorreduce costs – it can be facilitated by the private sector.

Social objectives are achieved though:

• Meetingthehousingneedsofincreasinglydiverse household types including smaller households, particularly single person households.

• Creatingcommunitydiversity–housingdiversity supports community diversity by enabling a range of different family types, age and income ranges to live in the same neighbourhood.

Environmental objectives are achieved though:

• Reductionintheenvironmentalfootprint– decreasing the use of resources and amount of land. Despite the decrease in average household size, the average floor area of new residential dwellings has increased by 31 per cent in the 20 years to 2006-07.1 In addition, 41 per cent of all occupied private dwellings had two or more bedrooms that were unoccupied.2

Despite the benefits of housing diversity, it is still rather difficult and costly to deliver. The best examples of housing diversity are found in older, inner city areas. However, houses in these areas command higher prices.

The Housing Diversity Guide contains design options and new models to achieve housing diversity in newer areas. It identifies the key planning and design principles that are essential for small lots (generally housing developed at higher densities on lots between 150 and 450 sq m), based on current best practice from developers and builders around Australia, who are responding to changing demands from purchasers for new housing.

The Guide includes four different home types – villa, cottage, duplex and manor home. Significant savings can be made by reducing the cost of both the land and of the dwelling. Reducing the cost of the land component significantly reduces the cost

of purchasing a home. Smaller house types also help to meet the needs of a diverse range of households, especially single and two-person households, which are the most rapidly growing household types in Australia. Smaller homes on smaller lots also reduce the use of resources, reducing the footprint of a suburb.

The lot sizes were developed by testing house designs against key assessment criteria as well as current council controls. The key assessment criteria were: affordability; amenity; diversity; integration; variety of tenure and environmental sustainability.

Each of the lots were tested against key planning principles which covered: integrated planning threshold (mainly amenity including solar access, privacy, streetscape and view loss); floor space ratio; site coverage; landscaped area; building envelope controls; solar access and accessibility.

In keeping with the goal of all Landcom projects providing opportunities for a diverse range of households to live in, there are examples of housing diversity at work in a number of developments. Landcom’s Hunterford estate at Oatlands, a medium density housing joint venture with St Hilliers, illustrates the full range of housing diversity with single detached, attached row houses, residential flat buildings and garage top studios. Terrace houses at The Ponds, a joint venture between Landcom and Australand, in North West Sydney are an example of smaller lot homes that have received wide market acceptance.

The Housing Diversity Guide is just one of the many projects that contribute to Landcom’s Sustainability Model, and it is clear that housing diversity can address all of the social, economic and environmental goals.

For a copy of the Guide, visit www.landcom.com.au.

Anna Petersen [email protected]

Anna Chubb [email protected]

1 ABS 2008 “Feature Article: average floor area of new residential dwellings” in Building Approvals Australia, February 2008 Cat No 8731.0, ABS Canberra.2 ABS 2006 “A Picture of the Nation” Cat No 2070.0 ABS Canberra.

TERRACE HOUSES AT THE PONDS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF SMALLER LOT HOMES THAT ARE RECEIVING WIDE MARKET ACCEPTANCE.

LANDCOM’S HUNTERFORD DEVELOPMENT ILLUSTRATES THE FULL RANGE OF HOUSING DIVERSITY


people + events

Winter Luncheon with Minister Keneally

1

2

3

5

6

6

1 2

3

5

4

4

Judy McKittrick, Minister Keneally, Simon Basheer

Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally

Peter Andrews, Dipen Rughani and Emma Dean

Cameron Holt, Judy McKittrick and Aaron Chandler

Stephen Albin, UDIA NSW CEO

Stephen Barr and Roger Collins-Woolcock


people + events

Western Sydney Luncheon

Hunter Chapter

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

3

54

Networking drinks at this year’s venue, Sydney Olympic Park

Sean O’Toole, Landcom

Sell-out crowd for the annual event

Ashlee Henson and David England

Jim Peachman, RTA


people + events

2009 National Congress

1

2

2

3

3

5

5

4

4

1

Stephen Holmes, UDIA National President

Site tour

Tony Perich, Ralph Bruce and Nick Duncan

Trade show and sponsor exhibition

UDIA National Awards for Excellence President’s Award winner – Prince Henry at Little Bay by Landcom

LKD

0075

6

32 DEVELOPERS DIGEST

development intelligence

Also, recently there has been a dramatic improvement in housing affordability and an increase in the the first home owners grant, thereby boosting demand further. Supply is now starting to respond, but unless there is a sufficient uplift in new accommodation, price pressures will intensify further where demand is strongest, namely the least expensive suburbs.

The underlying demand for new dwellings (captured in the chart below) has three main components:

•Household formation is the propensity for sections of the population to create separate households requiring separate dwellings. This creation can come about through a number of avenues such as migration, marriage, separation, children leaving the family home etc. Needless to say, household formation is extensively driven by the growth in the population, although a long run decline in household size has also contributed.

•Demolitions are simply the removal of a dwelling from the housing stock which will require replacement if the housing stock is not to diminish.

•Other, which includes dwellings such as holiday homes, vacant homes and those available to rent or sale.

Credible and reliable information is the cornerstone of building a great business. UDIA NSW is your trusted source of development industry information and is pleased to have launched Development Intelligence, a quarterly report featuring a comprehensive suite of industry statistics and analysis. UDIA NSW has formed a collaboration with leading industry commentator Rob Ellis from Property Insights to deliver members this quality publication, and regular commentary on issues of relevance to the industry – including changes in the official cash rate, DA approval statistics, and changes in consumer confidence.

For the full copy of the latest Development Intelligence report, visit the members only section of www.udia-nsw.com.au.

Underlying and Cyclical Demand for Housing in NSWUnderlying demand for housing in NSW has been strong for a number of years. Since this has not been matched by sufficient construction of new accommodation, a supply shortfall has resulted.

In NSW, primarily a consequence of a pick-up in population growth, underlying demand for accommodation has steadily increased since 2004. Even so, housing completions have failed to keep pace, leading to a housing shortfall and, as a consequence, a decline in private sector vacancies and rapid rental growth.

The lack of first home buyer interest, as well as a fall-off in housing finance, suggests housing affordability was a significant restraining factor holding back demand during this period.

This is hardly surprising as in June 2008 housing affordability in Sydney was at its most onerous level since the boom/bust period of 1990.

However, the combination of virtually stagnant house price inflation and a sharp decline in mortgage interest rates has resulted in affordability improving significantly. In the nine months to March 2009 affordability improved by over 35% in NSW and is currently some 20% below its long run average.

So, as well as strong underlying fundamentals, namely rapid population growth, rising rents and an accommodation shortfall, there has been a dramatic improvement in cyclical demand conditions.

If this was not enough to bolster housing demand, in October 2008 the first home owners’ grant was increased, thereby bringing forward future demand. Quite simply, the FHOG, initially at least, by reducing property prices improves housing affordability.

Not only has this resulted in first-time buyer demand increasing significantly, but it is finance for construction and new dwellings which have risen sharply in recent months (see chart below). Adding to demand pressures, rising rental yields are improving the attractiveness of housing for investors.

However, as the Reserve Bank points out, price pressures are already intensifying in the least expensive suburbs, (where first home buyer demand is strongest) while price weakness is apparent in the more affluent suburbs. So, with demand for housing set to accelerate, unless further accommodation becomes available, the upward pressure on house prices is likely to intensify.


national update

COAG Streamlining of Housing Development AssessmentsTherefore we welcomed the COAG announcement of 2 July 2009 to streamline housing development assessments by:

• Increasingtheuseofcode-basedassessment, with a target for increase to be set later this year, by making and harmonising codes for houses, units and commercial developments; and

• Measuringperformanceaccordingtothe number, type and length of DA, with publication of a report in June 2010.

Whilst welcoming the announcement, given the economic pressure the development and construction industry is under, UDIA has also called for a greater emphasis to be given to reforming the planning and approval process at the State and Local level for all forms of development - not just small code assessable or those larger projects receiving Federal or State funding.

National President meets with Minister for HousingAs part of UDIA’s on-going dialogue and advocacy with the Federal Government, National President Stephen Holmes and National Vice-President Peter Sherrie recently met with Housing Minister the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP to discuss a range of issues impacting on the industry including National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), the First Home Owners Grant Boost, Ruddbank, and the Social Housing Initiative.

UDIA regularly meets with key Federal Government Stakeholders including Ministers, Shadow Ministers, Advisers, Backbenchers, Senior Public Servants and Parliamentary Committee Staff to educate and lobby on behalf of our industry.

BroadbandThe Government’s establishment of a National Broadband Network included an announcement that fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) infrastructure would be required in greenfield estates that receive planning approval after 1 July 2010.

UDIA has pro-actively engaged with the Federal Government in relation to this issue, including arranging industry consultations in all mainland states, plus advocating industry concerns with senior officials in the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and with the Minister’s Office.

UDIA National UpdateUDIA has been advocating the need for reform of DAs at both state and Federal level for a considerable period of time.

In our discussions and submissions, UDIA has strongly stated the case that there should be no difference in relation to the treatment of new estates and retrofitting. It is simply inequitable for there to be an upfront capital charge for Greenfield estates but a cost recovery approach for elsewhere. And that if developers are required to deliver the FTTP in Greenfield estates, then some type of rebate scheme needs to apply to the connection.

FHOG BoostFollowing intensive lobbying from UDIA, the Federal Government announced in the May Budget that it would extend the First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) Boost for an additional six months.

Given the success of the FHOG Boost, UDIA is continuing to advocate for a targeted stimulus package for all new housing construction, including the introduction of a New Home Owners Grant.

RuddbankDespite strong lobbying on behalf of the industry by UDIA and kindred industry associations, the Ruddbank legislation was recently defeated in the Senate by the Opposition and the Greens. With the serious problems Australian development companies currently face in accessing finance, the defeat of the Bill is a major blow to the industry and is likely to put thousands of jobs at risk.

UDIA believes that rather than opposing the RuddBank legislation, the Senate should seek to resurrect the Bill and extend the

legislation to include residential property projects as well as commercial property.

National Vice-President Peter Sherrie outlined UDIA’s concerns on Lateline Business. To view the transcript and video please go to: www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200906/s2601271.htm

UDIA National Congress 2010Following the recent successful 2009 National Congress in Brisbane, preparations are already well underway for the 2010 UDIA National Congress to be held in Sydney from the 8th to 11th of March 2010.

The 2010 UDIA National Congress Committee is inviting members to submit abstracts for consideration for inclusion in the Congress workshop program. All abstracts will be rigorously reviewed by a panel of experts who will assess them for inclusion in the Congress workshop program.

For more information regarding the 2010 National Congress, including the Call for Papers, please go to: www.udiacongress.com.au

About the UDIA National Office:UDIA’s National office is located in Canberra to allow UDIA to more effectively represent the development industry to the Federal Government and national media.

Richard Lindsay is the Chief Executive Officer of the UDIA National Office, and can be contacted on 02 6230 0055 or [email protected].

For further information regarding UDIA National, please go to: www.udia.com.au.


legal news

It dictates ways to manage or regulate natural resources, industry, commerce, development and town planning. It is reflected in laws, environmental planning instruments and policies at all levels of government.

In previous articles in this Digest I have focused on several cases which illustrate that sustainability considerations can ultimately affect whether development consent is given. These articles have referred to cases concerning a retirement development in Sandon Point and a coal mine in Anvil Hill, the key issue being whether sustainability, climate change and biodiversity should have been considered as relevant factors in determining the development applications. In the Hub Action Group case the Court rejected a development application for a waste facility in Molong because, in part, it was not considered to be a sustainable use of the land. The Court wisely noted in that case that sometimes there is a shadow between ideas for sustainability and the reality of it.

A recent case in a very urban location illustrates how planning documents have operated to give some reality to the objective of sustainability. In Humphrey’s case (Humphrey & Edwards v City of Sydney [2009] NSWLEC 1075) the Land and Environment Court examined whether the City of Sydney was permitted to consider principles of sustainability, as formulated in local and State government planning documents other than environmental planning instruments, when determining a development application. The Sustainable Sydney 2030 Draft Strategic Plan and the Sydney City Draft Subregional Strategy were the documents in question. In this case “sustainability” was used in the context of the economic and master planning sustainability in the area of the development site.

Sustainable Sydney 2030 VisionThe Sustainable Sydney 2030 Vision as explained in the Draft Strategic Plan sees a “green, global and connected” city. In this context “green” means environmentally friendly with sustainable industries driving economic growth. “Global” involves promoting Sydney as a global city

with world-class tourist attractions and embracing innovation and new technologies. “Connected” means highly accessible with extensive walking and cycling routes and upgraded public transport.

Activity HubsThe Draft Strategic Plan is far from being just a motherhood document. It enunciates practical, tangible steps for achieving the often abstract and undefined ideal of sustainability. One part of the plan is the creation of “Activity Hubs” – focal points for local shopping and facilities such as libraries, education centres, primary schools, community gardens, fresh food markets and wireless internet hotspots. The Plan provides that every resident in lesser Sydney (the area administered by the City of Sydney) would be within walking distance, one kilometre, of a Hub.

The Plan sees Sydney in 2030 having 10 Activity Hubs:

• Barangaroo,theregiontothewestoftheCBD encompassing Miller’s Point and the Rocks

• CrownStreet,SurryHills

• GlebePointRoad

• GreenSquare,intheRosebery/Alexandriaregion

• HarrisStreet,Ultimo

• Haymarket

• KingStreet,Newtown

• KingsCross

• OxfordStreet

• RedfernStreet.

There is a plan for each Activity Hub. In Crown Street, for example, the Council will identify opportunities for a fresh food market, investigate opportunities for the Surry Hills Shopping Centre to undergo a renewal, support creative industries and start-ups in the area south of Goulburn Street and encourage reuse of warehouse buildings in the area south of Goulburn Street.

Green SquareBarangaroo and Green Square are labelled “Future Activity Hubs” requiring substantial development or urban renewal. The Plan provides that by 2030 the areas will be

exemplary of sustainability. In Green Square, the area in which the developer in Humphrey’s case wished to develop, that exemplary sustainability is to be achieved by:

• prioritisingsustainabletransport

• creatinggenerouscanal-sideopenspaceand parkland along the tributary channels

• providingaffordablehousing

• improvingaccessfromRoseberytotheGreen Square Activity Hub

• expandingthemixed-useresidentialareas thus allowing for new employment opportunities

• focusingonemergingenvironmental,creative and knowledge oriented industries

• replicatingthemixofsmallbusinessandresidential use in Surry Hills

A key element of this was for the Green Square Town Centre (Town Centre), an area of about 14 ha, to be the major commercial, retail, cultural and entertainment centre for Green Square.

Development applicationThe site at issue in Humphrey’s case is a light industrial site at Alexandria which extends between Botany Road and Wyndham Street on the north-western edge of the major intersection of those roads with Bourke Road. It is located on the opposite side of Bourke Road from the boundary of the planned Town Centre.

The developer had obtained development consent from the Council in February 2008 for a mixed use development of approximately 26,000 sq m of floor space. It comprised 15,000 sq m of retail space, 11,000 sq m of commercial space and a car park with a capacity of 614 vehicles.

The developer then lodged a further application to amend the approval, having unsuccessfully applied for a modification under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPA Act), to increase substantially the retail space (to 25,000 sq m) and car parks (to 800) and reduce the commercial space (to 1100 sq m). A main element of the increased retail space was to be a discount department store.

Council failed to approve the development

Sustainability extends to planning integrity and consistencySimon FraserCOLIN BIGGERS & PAISLEY

Sustainability involves meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.


legal news

application within the prescribed period. It thought that the development would have a detrimental impact on the vitality and success of the Green Square Town Centre, hindering it from functioning as a cohesive centre, diverting patrons from it and competing with it for retail spending and visitor trips. Patrons would not flow freely between the sites because of the physical constraints separating the site from the Town Centre. These consequences were argued by Council to be contrary to the public interest. The Council’s position was that the development site should be primarily commercial office space. Council had approved the original plan in 2008 on the basis that it comprised in the retail component a supermarket and speciality shops which were mainly convenience based retailed. The new proposal not only increased the retail mix, but changed its character, particularly with the proposed discount supermarket store.

Court decisionThe developer appealed to the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal by the Council. The Court upheld the Council’s position that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the Town Centre. It did so essentially on two grounds, namely that the proposed development was:

• inconflictwiththerelevantplanningdocuments and the objective under the EPA Act, and

• notinthepublicinterestbecauseitwouldcreate unacceptable “economic impacts in the locality” (Section 79C(1)(b) of the EPA Act).

Council also argued that the development did not relate acceptably to the public domain. Although that argument was unsuccessful, it

did not affect the outcome of the case.

Relevant planning documentsThe Court referred to the South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 17 - Green Square Town Centre) which states that the Town Centre was to be the major commercial, retail, cultural and entertainment centre in the area. The Court also noted Section 79C(1) of the EPA Act which provides general matters for consideration in determining a development application, including the public interest. The New South Wales Court of Appeal had previously held that the public interest may be represented by environmental planning instruments and other planning documents. Relevant planning documents in this case, included the Sustainable Sydney 2030 Vision and the Sydney City Draft Subregional Strategy, being State Government’s strategy for Green Square to be a sustainable development. The most important of those plans was the plan for the Green Square Town Centre to be the focal point of the area.

The Court accepted that the development would be inconsistent with the Vision and Strategy plans. It was held that as a matter of common sense the development of a retail centre which is similar in retail floor area to the nearby Town Centre would substantially and adversely affect the economic viability of the retail areas in the Town Centre. That was especially so because the development would be completed before the Town Centre and there would be easier car access and more car parking. For these reasons and for the further reasons argued by Council, the development was held to be significantly inconsistent with the planning controls, Vision and Strategy. It would have a detrimental impact on the Town Centre and would not be in the public interest.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court

referred to the established principle of

the importance of ensuring integrity and

consistency in policy making.

Existing and proposed investmentAs a further point, the Court held that the

application should be rejected on grounds

of “the public interest” under Section 79C(1)

(e) of the EPA Act because the proposed

development, if approved, would be

inconsistent with the significant investments

already made by Landcom (as the major

landowner in the area), the Council and the

State government in planning for the Town

Centre, including site preparation. The total

estimated cost of all planned infrastructure

and public domain works was $103,200,000.

Implications for developersDevelopers and their advisors should

take note of Humphrey’s case as one of

an increasing number of cases where

sustainability principles, as enunciated

in planning documents, may affect the

determination of a development application

or modification. There is an increasing

number of laws, planning controls and

policies at all levels of government affecting

development in the name of sustainability.

Well informed planning and legal advice is

essential for a proper understanding of the

laws, planning controls and policies which

affect a proposed development.

Sustainability is a broad concept which is

here to stay – we must learn to see it as an

opportunity rather than as a threat.

[email protected]

PO BOX 543 Round Corner NSW 2158P: 02 9651 6011 F: 02 9651 6022

Contact Brent Winning 0418 242 [email protected]

www.claron.com.au

ArchitectureUrban Planning

Project ManagementEnvironmental AssessmentResidential single dwellings

Medium densityCommercial/Industrial

Resource extraction projects

LKD

0070

2

Heart of Harrington Grove now completeHarrington Grove, located in Sydney’s south west is pleased to have launched the focal point of their development, the multi million dollar Country Club.

Surrounded by miles of woodlands and grassy hills, the Country Club is the new venue for casual dining, recreation, relaxing and community interaction in Harrington Grove. Designed by a team of award winning architects to create a venue with outstanding leisure and recreation facilities, the Country Club offers rich elegant interiors with luxurious lounges and cosy fireplaces, juxtaposed with soaring ceilings and expansive glass walls opening to magnificent view. The leisure and recreation facilities will be reserved for residents and their guests.

Harrington Grove is a 1200 lot masterplanned residential lifestyle development that brings Sir Warwick Fairfax’s dream to reality, a careful blending of old world traditions and values and a busy contemporary lifestyle, where natural surroundings meet an urban vision.

The development consists of a residential subdivision of 40 per cent of the site with the remaining being rehabilitated and managed as a conservation area for large areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland. Small distinct

community precincts have been carefully designed and developed to engender a strong sense neighbourly interaction and security with a focus being placed on the balance between nature and residents.

A new development by the Kresner Group – Advantaged Care at Georges Manor in Sydney’s south west – has taken environmentally sustainable design to a new level for the aged care industry.

Laurie Kresner, the head of Kresner Group which both develops and operates aged care facilities, says the decision to incorporate ESD elements into Georges Manor was just one part of the development’s contribution to the local community.

“It’s not a legislatively-led decision to use ESD principles as the design was completed prior to Section J being implemented, for us it’s a matter of the social responsibility of our organisation and the provision of top-level services to our residents,” says Mr Kresner.

“Particularly in aged care, issues such as infection control are vital to the wellbeing of our residents, so there needs to be no compromise at all when it comes to the quality of services such as sterilisation in the laundry. We have found a way to do this that is also sensitive to the environment.”

The laundry at Georges Manor is a cold-

water laundry system that uses ozone technology to sterilise rather than boiling water. Aged care facilities are notorious for chewing up huge amounts of power – Mr Kresner says in a typical aged care facility the boiling of water accounts for 70 per cent of the energy use.

“Besides the substantial savings in energy use by not boiling water, our Ozone system also uses 60 per cent less water than the typical laundry system,” Kresner says.

Other sustainable elements of the development include sensor lighting, which dramatically reduces energy usage, and water harvesting for toilet flushing and irrigation of the extensive landscaped areas.

“Our water harvesting system also includes a peak flow moderator to reduce flash flooding in the local area as well as the latest filtering system that helps to remove ground rubbish before the excess water is released into the local water system,” added Mr Kresner.

More than 60 large solar panels on the roof of the development provide ample energy for the hot water needs of both residents and

Georges Manor takes sustainability in aged care developments to a new level

back-of-house services, with any additional hot water boosted by a gas system.

The approach to lighting at Georges Manor begins with the architectural design of the facility, which maximises the sites northern frontage.

Architect Simon Thorne at IDG Architects says most of the residential rooms provide north facing units or south facing rooms which use the courtyards to bounce light into the rooms. He adds that east or west facing rooms are minimal but where necessary they have been protected with louvres or deep overhangs.

project updates


member news

Sydney based Dynamic Property Services has been placed 5th in the BRW list of top 50 Best Companies to Work for in 2009. Named as the ‘top home-grown hero’

Dynamic is in the company of international greats such as Google.

Managing Director Wally Patterson said “I feel very privileged to work with such a talented team of people. We are all very proud of the recognition we have received today, to be named in the top five of the 50 ‘Best Workplaces’ Australia wide.”

“More than 1 million people live in, work in or own strata units in NSW.

Managing multi-owner properties is something that is often taken for granted, yet strata and community schemes are becoming increasingly complex. It is a very demanding job that requires a high level of legal and technical knowledge and very long hours – it is not an occupation that generates a lot of ‘fun’!”, said Mr Patterson.

Dynamic is considered a quality leader in strata, partly due to high skill level and commitment of staff and partly due to an average portfolio size of 38 schemes per manager. (The industry norm is 60 to over 100 schemes per manager – Institute of Strata Title Management benchmarking 2008).

“We hire for attitude and values, on the basis that skills can be taught” said Mr Patterson. “We always involve a number of peers in any selection process so we feel confident about the fit. Once we have the right people ‘on the bus’ we can take the bus wherever we want it to go.”

“In an industry where recent surveys showed only 1 per cent of strata companies thought their staff were their competitive advantage, Dynamic knows that its competitive advantage is a culture that attracts and retains some of the best people in the industry who are ethical, enthusiastic, committed, hardworking, and knowledgeable.”

June saw 55 Colin Biggers & Paisley staff members make their way to Centennial Park to join Sister Helen Clarke and Sister Leone Wittmack on their final leg of a 400km ‘Nuns Run’.

Beginning in Dubbo, the two Sisters of charity from St Vincents Hospital journeyed through several small towns across NSW in order to raise funds and awareness for the new Garvan St Vincent’s Campus Cancer Centre. The new Cancer Centre is an initiative of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research as well as St Vincents & Mater Health Sydney which focuses on the development of new diagnostics and the delivery of individualised clinical care.

The final meet was in Sydney, where over 550 people joined the nuns in either a 2 or 4km fun run. Colin Biggers & Paisley was a major sponsor of the event and through many generous donations, was able to raise $8,875, which made them the third highest fundraising team. Overall, the Nuns Run was able to raise over $150,000 to help fund the $100m custom built cancer centre.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) in May awarded Boral their Freedom Award that recognises the greatest contribution to fundraising programs from a single supporter.

Boral’s combined staff and corporate donations of nearly $450,000 in 2008 have been invested into the best Australian medical research programs that seek a cure for type 1 diabetes and its complications.

The 2008 Freedom Award caps a productive eight year partnership that has seen Boral reach an extraordinary $2 million in contributions to JDRF.

JDRF CEO Mike Wilson said “we are very

grateful for the strong support from Boral, which has been a critical part of our ability to fund 44 research programs across the country.”

“This fantastic achievement reflects a broad-based involvement from Boral staff across the country, led and guided by the input and example of Boral CEO and Managing Director Rod Pearse.”

Mr Pearse said “I am extremely proud that through our unique partnership with JDRF, which has spanned eight years, the Boral team has now contributed $2 million to JDRF, with Boral employees enthusiastically raising $1.65 million of this total amount.”

general newsColin Biggers & Paisley join Nuns Run

Boral awarded Freedom Award

EDAW AECOM will transition its name to Design + Planning at AECOM, beginning October 2009. The name change signifies AECOM’s evolution to a more deeply integrated industry-leading consultancy whose professional technical, creative and management support services help clients enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments.

“EDAW has been a member of AECOM since 2005,” said EDAW President Jason Prior. “Now we’re developing closer integration with our colleagues in order to better address the challenges of our time.

As part of the new AECOM, we are able to draw from an extraordinary breadth of experience and expertise to address land-based and community challenges as we face an era of climate change, urbanisation, and resource scarcity.”

AECOM’s professional network includes planners, engineers, architects, economists, environmental professionals, and a myriad of allied specialists located throughout more than 100 countries. Through closer collaboration with this wider network of professionals, EDAW draws on a richer array of expertise for projects of all scales.

EDAW AECOM to become Design + Planning at AECOM

Dynamic Property Services makes BRW Top 50 Great Places to Work

Colin Biggers & Paisley Nuns Run participants


member news

UDIA NSW Councillor George Rounis has been appointed to the new national role of General Manager – Residential Projects.

Clarendon CEO Maurice Felizzi said “George will add strategic focus to our recently established Residential Projects division, an area which we are keen to develop in the future.”

George, a civil engineer by profession, comes to Clarendon from a 15-year career at Australand, where he was most recently the NSW State Manager, Residential Land and Housing. Prior to that he worked at Blacktown City Council, one of Australia’s fastest growing localities, as a Development Services Engineer

George Rounis said, “I am excited to be joining Clarendon at a time when it is focussed on growth and excellence. The company has a strong focus on the project home consumer market, and the development of the new residential projects division will allow us to service the needs of land developers, government and investors with the same attention to quality and timely delivery.”

Changes to Stockland’s residential businessDenis Hickey departs StocklandAs a result of the departure of Residential CEO, Denis Hickey in early July, Stockland has made changes to its Residential organisational structure and management team.

A number of internal promotions result from these changes.

David Pitman, CEO Retirement LivingExecutive General Manager Strategy and Corporate Development, David Pitman, will take on the role of CEO Retirement Living. He will continue to head up Group Strategy.

David has previous operational experience and was keen to return to a line management role. He has played a key role in developing the growth strategy for Retirement Living and is well placed to add significant value to this business.

Mark Hunter, CEO ResidentialQLD General Manager Residential, Mark Hunter, will relocate to Sydney to take on the role of CEO Residential, becoming part of Stockland’s Executive Committee.

Mark has over 28 years experience in the property sector, in South Africa and Australia. He joined Stockland in 2000 and has managed Stockland’s largest Residential Communities business over the last two years, with responsibility for 31 residential projects.

movers+shakers

Nick Duncan, General Manager – NSW, Clarendon Residential Group

George Rounis, General Manager – Residential Projects, Clarendon Residential Group

Keep the industry up to date on your business in the Developers Digest!UDIA NSW members are welcome to submit material for Member News. Send your information on new appointments, updates on your latest projects and general business news to Digest Editor Lisa Marshall on [email protected] or call Lisa on 02 9868 3677 to discuss submissions for the next edition.


member news

Former UDIA NSW CEO, Nick Duncan has been appointed to the role of General Manager – NSW for Clarendon Residential Group.

Clarendon CEO, Maurice Felizzi said, “Nick Duncan’s experience and energy will help consolidate and grow our business in NSW, where we are the number one home builder.”

Nick is a highly qualified property development professional with 20 years experience in the industry, including General Management roles in National

Development, NSW and WA state operations for the Stockland Group and the Housing Development Manager in NSW for Mirvac.

Mr Duncan said “I am looking forward to working with a team of passionate and capable people to develop the strategies that will continue to build on our leadership position in NSW. Clarendon is a company that is determined to be client focussed and committed to establishing best practice in every part of the business – that commitment will set us apart from our competitors.”


profile

Can you describe some the key aspects/functions of your role?Following a recent serious illness (breast cancer – fixed now thanks to a major rebuild!) I decided to leave a mid size consultancy and set up my own small home based practice.

I happily work from my lounge room over-looking Coffs Jetty on smallish DA’s either on my own or as part of an informal alliance with other local development professionals.

I also provide a strategic planning “locum” to Kempsey Shire Council where I project manage rezoning processes.

What do you enjoy most about your role?The flexibility to be as busy as I need or want to be. The opportunity to work as a team with other local development professionals – engineers, LA’s, surveyors, ecologists without the formality of a employer/employee relationship.

Biggest challenges?Staying away from the beach when I should be working.

Most interesting project you are currently working on?Rezoning of highly constrained land at South West Rocks to achieve a low density living environment with strong linkages to the surrounding lagoon and creek environment. We hope to achieve some perpetual environmental management outcomes through the use of a voluntary planning agreement. So far, all participants are keen, however, there is still some community resistance to the project.

My main focus (wish) for the project is to demonstrate that local government and developers can work together to achieve a sustainable outcome within a sensitive coastal location.

What do you think are some of the key issues affecting the development industry at the moment?The rezoning process is slow and complex. Communities are cynical and not prepared to work with Councils and developers in a meaningful way. We really need some more good urban development on the mid north coast to demonstrate that this is possible.

How and why did you become involved in UDIA NSW?As a sole trader, I felt that UDIA NSW was the best forum for me to keep up contact with other development professionals and keep informed of changes and events in the industry.

Any personal mottos or philosophy’s you aspire to?Yes, if you want something done, do it yourself!

In my spare time I...Outrigger canoe, surf, swim, ride, eat good food and love my coffee. I also maintain contact with three teenagers who are dispersed between Brisbane and Tamworth.

North Coast Chapter ChairPosition: Sole TraderCompany: Keiley Hunter Urban Planner

HunterKeiley


events + professional development

Lunch with Brad Hazzard Thursday 6 August The Hunter Region has experienced significant growth through mining, land development and new industry, and UDIA NSW sees a bright future for the Region and the potential that it holds for not only accommodating new dwellings, but also job generation and increasing exports. Join us to hear what Mr Brad Hazzard MP plans for the Hunter Region.

Venue: Noah’s on the Beach, Newcastle

Seniors Living or Retirement Living – the Next Evolution! Tuesday 18 August Join us to hear from three key seniors living developer’s and hear their rationale behind their companies recent investment decisions and discuss market trends, design trends and new ownership models emerging in the sector. Register today!

Venue: Swissotel, Sydney

Development Intelligence Briefing Wednesday 16 September

UDIA NSW has partnered with leading industry commentator Rob Ellis from Property Insights to deliver you a quarterly report featuring comprehensive analysis every relevant statistic and data release that impacts on the development industry. This industry briefing will provide a commentary on the report and the opportunity to ask questions directly to Rob Ellis over breakfast.

Venue: Swissotel, Sydney

Awards for Excellence Gala Dinner Friday 25 September

This year marks the 15th Anniversary of the UDIA NSW Awards for Excellence. Join us to celebrate and recognise excellence in development and celebrate this state’s achievements. Save the date!

Venue: Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre

UDIA NSW Professional Development Foundations Training

17, 18, 24, 25 September Designed for new graduates entering the development sector, those considering a career in property development, and those with a technical background looking for a broader, more integrated overview of the industry. Modules include Development Opportunities and Financial Feasibility; The Regulatory Environment: Obtaining an Approval; Development Project Management and Property Development Marketing and Sales.

Venue: UDIA NSW Office, Sydney

State Conference Friday 30 October The past year has been turbulent and the industry is focused on funding and finance into the future. This year’s state conference will focus on The Stimulus and Beyond with keynote addresses from Bill Evans, Chief Economist, Westpac and Ross Greenwood, Finance Expert, Nine Network and 2GB.

Venue: Star City Casino

For more information on upcoming UDIA NSW events and professional development, visit www.udia-nsw.com.au or email [email protected] If you or a colleague would like to be added to UDIA NSW’s event notification email list, send your request to [email protected].

ADVERTISEMENT

Elite Relocatable Offices – providing a professional marketing suite for developers

Elite Relocatable Offices has been in the business of providing customers with up market marketing suites for 18 years. ERO has been lead by Brett and Daryyn Rossiter who have sought to provide their customers with a professional and functional environment to market their products, whether it is a house and land development, land only or apartment development.

ERO has been at the leading edge of supplying marketing suites to its customers, coming up with innovative designs all the while keeping in mind the customer’s needs for functionality as well as keeping that professional sales environment.

ERO’s aim is to provide customers with exceptional service.

“ I have found them to be a very professional organization offering a flexible and reliable service,” said Australands Residential sales manager, Dino Carulli.

ERO has continually offered flexibility with its designs so that the customer gets the most out of their marketing environment. Clarendon Residential Group’s Paul Perkovic wrote, ”I have dealt with ERO over the past years on numerous projects. As a family run business the Elite team have always displayed a cooperative and flexible approach in delivering either custom built buildings or modifications to their existing buildings to suit our project requirements.”

Glen Amanonce from AV Jennings said, “Using ERO means that we can provide our customers with a professional sales environment that is cost effective, relocatable and very functional.”

For 18 years, ERO has been providing their customers with the right environment to market their products from. ERO look forward to working with your team on your next project.

Elite Relocatable Offices has been in the business of providing customers with up market marketing suites for 18 years.

For more information vist the web site at www.eliteoffices.com.au or contact Brett or Darryn on 02 47 749 333 or email them at [email protected].

Take an active stance in the promotion of your organisation and the expansion of your business networks by sponsoring a UDIA NSW event. Contact Jennifer O’Rourke, UDIA NSW Business Development Manager on 02 9868 3677 or email [email protected] to discuss sponsorship with UDIA NSW today.

Through our wide networks, UDIA NSW

sponsorship provides you with a valuable

opportunity to promote your business to all

stakeholders in the industry, and offers you

unparalleled access to key decision makers

in the field.

UDIA NSW brings the development industry

direct to your business by providing you

with a network of members that include –

developers; financiers; builders; suppliers;

consultants; contractors, councils and

government authorities. Last year more than

5,000 industry members attended UDIA NSW

functions to hear from key government and

business leaders.

Sponsorship with UDIA NSWIn this increasingly competitive market, there has never been a more important time to strengthen your business profile by aligning your interests with UDIA NSW.

Industry Leaders Program

Awards for Excellence

Winter Luncheon

Major sponsor

Major sponsor Major sponsor Major sponsor

Major sponsorSupporting sponsor Supporting sponsor

Supporting sponsor

Western Sydney Luncheon

Hunter Chapter

Development Intelligence Briefing

Young Developers Trivia Night CEO Boardroom Series

Professional Development - Financial Feasibility Professional Development - Property Development Management

sponsors

SC

D01

205

Documents

digest issue 2, 2009 - UDIA NSW€¦DEVELOPERS DIGEST 1 developers digest issue 2, 2009 Greening the Inner-South: Victoria Park and Green Square Biobanking Update Finding a balance