Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016 - mav.asn.au€¦ · Web view‘MAV submission to...

Smart Cities Plan

Submission

June 2016

Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016

© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2016.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.

All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to MAV reception on 9667 5555.

The MAV does not guarantee the accuracy of this document's contents if retrieved from sources other than its official websites or directly from a MAV employee.

The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio.

While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils. This Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016 has been endorsed by the MAV Board.


Table of contents

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................4

2 Background............................................................................................................................5

3.1. The role of different levels of government in city building...............................................5

3.2. The role of local government in cities..............................................................................6

3.3. Key challenges for councils.............................................................................................8

3.4. The Building Better Cities program.................................................................................9

3 Setting the framework..........................................................................................................10

4.1. National urban policy.....................................................................................................10

4.2. Agreed priorities............................................................................................................10

4.3. Funding model..............................................................................................................12

4.4. Governance arrangements...........................................................................................12

4 Additonal matters to be included..........................................................................................12

5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................14


Summary

The Smart Cities Plan, and the Federal Government’s involvement in cities is welcomed by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and Victorian councils.

It is clear from recent history that for city shaping projects to suceed there is a need for all levels of government to work together to leverage their investments.

Councils face a numbe of challenges in the development and management of cities particularly rapid growth, ageing infrastructure and a disconnect between funding models.

A national framework for cities is needed that included a national urban policy to articulate roles, a process to agree priorities, a coordinated funding model that can be leveraged and appropriate governance arrangements that support effective implementation.

Existing structures such as the Regional Development Committees should help to inform the Federal Government’s approach and priorities.

5 Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016: June 2016

1 Introduction

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide comment to inform the preparation of the Federal Government’s Smart Cities Plan.

The MAV is the peak body for local government in Victoria. Under the Municipal Association Act 1907, the MAV is required to represent all 79 councils in Victoria.

This submission is made by the MAV as part of an ongoing commitment to support the role of local government in sustainable urban management – as a statutory and strategic planning authority, public land and asset manager, infrastructure provider, and in the delivery of civic and community services.

The MAV is broadly supportive of the three pillars outlined in the paper:

‘We will become smarter investors in our cities’ infrastructure We will coordinate and drive smarter city policy We will drive the take up of smart technology, to improve the sustainability of our cities

and drive innovation.’

We are also supportive of the early commitments made.

Local Government provides the most accessible level of government for local communities to engage with. Councils uniquely hold knowledge about local community needs and provide a place based mechanism to resolve, balance and implement competing policy objectives and assist in the delivery of targeted programs and services for State and Federal Governments.

The MAV and councils recognise the need for all levels of government to work together, and with the community, to ensure our cities are managed sustainably for the future prosperity of the country and well-being of all Australians. Any plan for cities must maximise the levers that the Federal Government has at its disposal and be conscious of the strategic planning responsibilities of local government and the capacity to tailor policies and decision making to local needs and circumstances.

This submission was informed by the work of the MAV over the last five years during the development of State planning strategies, the MAV’s Strategic Plan, State Council resolutions and the comments of councils on the draft submission.


2 Background

1.

2.2.1. The role of different levels of government in city building

There are complex administrative arrangements surrounding the governing of cities in Australia. With three levels of government and a range of administrative levers or tools available it is worth considering the key instruments available to each level of government:

Level of government

Urban development mechanisms/levers

Fiscal Regulatory Land/buildings Capital works Community protection

Federal Income tax, GST and other forms of tax revenue

Infrastructure funding

Regulation of foreign investment

Superannuation

Borrowing

Key strategies

Building code

Australian Standards

Commonwealth land

Infrastructure investment

Aged care

State Property tax

Infrastructure funding

Growth Areas Infrastructure Charge

First home owners scheme

Borrowing

Key strategies

Public housing

Land supply – urban growth boundary

Environmental & public health compliance

State owned land Planning and construction of major infrastructure – (eg. roads, rail, energy, water, open space, health, education, human services, justice)

Housing subsidies

Local Rates

Borrowing

Grants

Key strategies, structure planning

Development controls (within boundaries set by State)

Council owned land

Planning and construction of infrastructure – (eg. roads, open space, community infrastructure)

There is a role for all levels of government in the development of cities. The Federal Government has significant financial levers available to it and through its roles in health,


education, transport, defence and immigration funding can directly influence urban form and quality of life. Key strategies such as the National Port Strategy and the National Land Freight Strategy and the Australian Infrastructure Plan are important to shaping the nation. Successive Federal Governments have also supported and funded active transport within cities as the benefits are wide ranging. Walking and cycling infrastructure will reduce congestion, parking issues, save people money, improve public health and benefit the environment. The Federal Government’s involvement in the provision of public transport is also critical. State Governments alone cannot fund city shaping public transport projects like the Melbourne Metro.

The State Government is also a key influencer in the shape and form of cities. As a deliverer of essential infrastructure such as roads, public transport, energy, water, sewerage, this trunk infrastructure fundamentally shapes a city and influences its development capacity. Other important, sometimes shared, responsibilities such as health, education, human services, justice, emergency management and environmental management influence the liveability of cities and the equity of access to services. The State also has an important planning and coordination role. The release of a 30 year Infrastructure Plan by the end of 2016, by Infrastructure Victoria, will influence priorities and how infrastructure is delivered by State and local government.

Over the last few decades it has become obvious that ‘major’ infrastructure is beyond the capacity of a single level of government to deliver and an unprecedented level of cooperation is required between levels of government. While on one hand this has increased the complexity of infrastructure planning and delivery and increased timeframes, on the other it has meant there is a greater level of ‘investment’ in the outcomes.

2.2. The role of local government in cities

Victoria has one capital city (Melbourne) with a significant population centre of 5.5 million 1. This is forecast to grow to 7.8 million 2 by 2051. If we consider all populations centres over 25,000 to be cities there are eight additional cities3 in Victoria. These are:

Traralgon Warrnambool Wodonga Mildura Shepparton Bendigo Ballarat Geelong

1 Victoria in Future2 Victoria in Future3 2011 Australian Census


These cities are responsible for about $11.4 billion worth of assets and infrastructure including roads, bridges, drains, town halls, recreation and leisure facilities, aged and family services, libraries and parks – all of which contribute to the quality of life or liveability of local areas.

The table below highlights how councils are directly involved in metropolitan Melbourne. While the table is not an exhaustive list it highlights the influential role of local government.

Statistics

Infrastructure and asset management

Maintain 27,422 kilometres of local road and spend in excess of $950,000,000 on renewal, upgrade, expansion and construction of new infrastructure in 2010 – 2011.

Recurrent expenses for footpaths and kerb and channeling were $51,867,907 and $31,837,264 respectively.

Own and maintain 15,845 hectares of public open space.

In 2010-2011 spent $383,825,295 on the construction of public halls, art galleries, parks, sport complexes, waterways and beaches.

Source: VEAC Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation and MAV records

Environmental services Maintain street lights at a cost of $38,577,436 annually.

Collect and dispose of 1,504,221 million tonnes of rubbish annually across 19 landfills and 39 transfer stations.

Source: Sustainability Victoria Annual Survey 2009-2010 & Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Strategic Plan.

Health, welfare and community services

Spent $73,815,056 in 2010-12 on family, community, aged and disability services.

Maintain and provide services at 138 libraries.

Maintain and provide services at 348 maternal and child health care centres.

Maintain and provides services at 830 kindergartens and childcare facilities worth approximately $1.6 billion.

90% of metropolitan councils own playgroup facilities.

87% of metropolitan councils own occasional care facilities.

65% of metropolitan councils own neighbourhood house facilities from which early childhood and other services operate.

Provide 29% of community transport vehicles in Victoria to allow the frail or disabled to get from A to B.

Source: MAV records and Community Transport Stocktake, published by Ipsos-Eureka Social Research


Institute

Planning and building services

Annually decide 37,325 planning permits of which approximately 5,000 are for a change of land use.

Approve 33,729 dwellings and 27,354 lots annually.

Deliver 98 structures plans to clarify preferred directions for future growth and how it will be managed.

Develop 389 local policies to guide local decision making.

Approve 62,117 building permits annually.

Source: DPCD webpage & Pulse data, Building Commission

Local government’s involvement in economic development and the provision of social services, including health and welfare services, community housing, recreation and sporting facilities, has been increasing over recent decades. In addition to rate income and fees and charges, councils are often reliant on state or national grant programs.

2.3. Key challenges for councils

Metropolitan councils have different characteristics and capacity however all councils, regardless of scale, face challenges relating to access - access to employment opportunities, personal mobility, social networks, services and amenities. In Victoria:

Metropolitan councils are attempting to balance increasing urban densities while at the same time responding to the concerns of their communities about built form and amenity.

Rural councils are challenged by their geographic size, demographic changes and low rate base as they struggle to provide and maintain infrastructure and services for their ageing and often declining resident community.

Many coastal and high amenity rural areas are undergoing rapid development due to the ‘sea change’ and ‘tree change’ phenomena.

The key obstacles facing councils are:

The expectation from State Government that implementation of key Government policies will be the same irrespective of the demographics and characteristics of local communities.

Uncertainty in the funding and timing of key infrastructure due to funding constraints of Federal and State Governments. Councils are also dealing significant infrastructure renewal concerns.


The variable financial capacity of Victorian councils.

A lack of incentives to more effectively facilitate development in and around activity centres and strategic sites.

A lack of an identifiable connection between increased development and infrastructure and service provision by State and Federal Government.

Communicating and coordinating the input of multiple State Departments and agencies and resolving competing tensions.

A disconnect in the provision of regional facilities and services.

Agreement on what is best planned and delivered at a National and State level is crucial to advancing the involvement of the Federal Government in urban matters. Once determined this will inform activities of all levels of government.

2.4. The Building Better Cities program

There have been varying levels of involvement in urban matters by the Federal Government over the last few decades. When there is national involvement in cities it can be demonstrated that this investment is significantly leveraged by both State and local government.

From 1991 to 1996, the then Federal Government funded the $816 million Building Better Cities Program to ‘promote improvements in the efficiency, equity and sustainability of Australian cities and to increase their capacity to meet the following objectives:

Economic growth and micro-economic reform Improved social justice Institutional reform Ecologically sustainable development Improved urban environment and more liveable cities.’

Of this program, Victoria received $209 million in federal funding with a concurrent contribution of $121 million from the State Government.

This significant program saw substantial results for Melbourne particularly in:

Increased quality of public housing and a model for future redevelopment Transport enhancements Aged housing Flood mitigation Deinstitutionalising health services to move toward community based care Investment in the food industry and research.


3 Setting the framework

The MAV considers that there are several ‘framework’ matters that need to be established for the Federal Government to usefully be involved in the urban policy arena. The most fundamental of these are:

Developing a national urban policy to guide decision making Agreeing priorities Providing for a funding model that can be further leveraged by state and local

government Setting appropriate governance arrangements.

3.

3.1. National urban policy

To ensure that the quality of life offered by our cities can continue to improve, it is essential to establish what is best planned at a national, state and local level and how that should best be delivered.

A national urban policy is required to ‘set the scene’ in terms of articulating the role of the Federal Government in urban development as well as the role of State and local government. There are current policy levers, for example, that only the Federal Government has, including taxation, finance, welfare, superannuation and foreign policy investment.

The policy should also provide clarity about the respective, and complementary role and function, of each Australian capital city and largest regional cities so as to improve collaboration and funding efficiencies. The policy could also give clarity and articulation of the strategic and spatial planning expectations for other levels of government as a response to commonwealth assets, uses and sites, for example airports.

3.2. Agreed priorities

From the Smart Cities Plan it seems that the focus of the plan is intended to be on jobs, transport, green urban spaces and human capital, although there are other references in the document to economic growth, housing affordability and environmental outcomes.

Clear outcomes and criteria will be need to be defined to enable the assessment of City Deals or refine projects or programs that the Federal Government will invest in, whatever form that investment may take. It is desirable that the criteria be developed with State and Territory governments, with input from local government, so that the needs of communities can be met.


All levels of government can quickly agree on the desirable characteristics and outcomes that cities should provide, additional to basic elements such as access to clean air and water.

When responding to the development of Plan Melbourne, the land use plan for Melbourne, metropolitan councils identified their highest priorities as aligning infrastructure delivery and growth, planning for jobs closer to where people live, protecting suburbs from inappropriate development, improving decision making processes, rebalancing population growth from Melbourne to rural and regional areas and opening up new funding sources.

Source: MAV Submission – Plan Melbourne

In previous work councils have also indicated priorities as including:

Sustainable urban form

The rate of Melbourne’s growth over the last decade has presented significant challenges including finding the right balance between Greenfield development and development in established areas of Melbourne.


Significant research has been undertaken that confirms the longer term costs to government (and future residents) of urban expansion when compared to the cost of urban infill. A more compact settlement pattern would save $300m per 1,000 dwellings, or $11billion over 50 years (based on 284,000 dwellings in growth areas).

Additional fringe development costs incurred include hard infrastructure provision such as for power and water, increased transport and health costs, and substantive greenhouse gas emissions when compared to established areas.

Accessible, Appropriate and Affordable Housing

Accessible housing is an example of the link between liveability and good planning and design, with well demonstrated economic and social benefits. Accessible housing principles encompass universal design and affordability – not just in the initial cost of purchasing a home, but throughout its life cycle. Similarly good planning and design can significantly reduce construction and operational costs and associated emissions for occupants, through such elements as passive solar orientation and natural ventilation.

National adoption of these principles and associated standards could result in significant cost savings to governments and the community as a whole.

3.3. Funding model

Problems that have been identified in local government infrastructure funding across Australia are:

Absence of a structured local government debt product for institutional investors.

Local government hasn’t fully explored the range of infrastructure investment procurement options available e.g. Risk transfer to private partners.

Absence of projects at a significant scale to warrant private sector involvement.

Communities’ willingness/capacity to pay increasing rates (property based tax).

While the suggestions made in the Smart Cities Plan appear valuable, we are of the view greater definition is required around how priority projects and City Deals will be funded. Is there security of funding for projects of national significance? Will projects with matched funding be given preference? Will State projects be competing with more local projects?

There will also need to be capacity building in terms of value capture and achieving investment returns for government.


3.4. Governance arrangements

In any Plan that involves potential funding, effective governance arrangements are required to deliver desired outcomes for our cities. The governance requires:

Bi-partisan commitment to a longer term metropolitan strategy/spatial plan. Government’s longer-term infrastructure planning program clearly articulated with timing of

implementation Clear allocation and communication of responsibility for implementation and funding

arrangements Monitoring indicators that can be measured and the outcomes evaluated.

The MAV would like to see existing government structures, processes and outcomes utilised rather than the establishment of new mechanisms. The Regional Development Australia Committees, established in 2009, have been successful in creating a higher level of cooperation between the three levels of Government, identifing strategic projects across regions and providing a clearer funding pathways. The sub-regional groups, five groups across metropolitan Melbourne, established as part of the delivery of Plan Melbourne have also seen the preparation of structure plans and the identification of key projects. Both of these structures appear to have fallen away in recent times but the significant work undertaken by the groups should be harnessed as part of making ‘City Deals’ and should guide future priorities.

4 Additional matters to be included

The MAV commends the simplicity of the Smart Cities Plan but considers there are matters of importance to councils that should be acknowledged such as:

The important influence of strategic planning, as distinct from regulatory reform. The alignment of land use and infrastructure planning is critical to achieving well resolved outcomes. There should be recognition of ‘good’, integrated planning that is clearly articulated and spatially resolved.

How community ownership of supported projects can best be achieved.

Sustainable cities need to be a primary focus in building cities. Given reduced water availability, pressure to reduce energy emissions, increasing lifecycle infrastructure costs and a rapidly increasing population there must be a sustained focused on making our cities sustainable – economically, socially and environmentally.


5 Conclusion

The MAV is broadly supportive of the Smart Cities Plan. We recognise the need for all levels of government to work together, with the community, to ensure our cities are managed sustainably for the prosperity of the country and wellbeing of all Australians.

We are happy to assist in any way we can. The first step may be to coordinate the input of councils into in further discussions about how ‘City Deals’ might be brokered and what they might be based on.


Date post:	26-Oct-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Submission to the Smart Cities Plan - Jun 2016 - mav.asn.au€¦ · Web view‘MAV submission to...

Documents