Your Development

Infrastructure comprises the (hard and soft) systems, services and facilities to support living in cities and towns.

Physical (hard) infrastructure includes:

• water supply
• sewerage
• waste disposal
• stormwater management
• energy
• communications
• transport.

Social (soft) infrastructure includes:

• education
• employment and essential services
• health
• public housing
• recreational facilities and other amenities
• social systems, formal and informal networks & flows.

Natural infrastructure includes:

• Systems and flows within nature (also termed ecosystem services) e.g. water supply and treatment, air quality.

Infrastructure and sustainable developments

From a sustainable development perspective, a shift is occurring in how urban planners think about infrastructure and how the urban environment is serviced:

• Industrial ecology – managing waste streams as resources (waste = fuel);
• Waste management – waste to energy (sewage sludge and biosolids), use of waste heat/coolth in industrial processes;
• Water management – stormwater capture and reuse, onsite treatment of waste water and reuse, sewer mining, recycled water reticulation;
• Energy – grid connected (onsite) renewable energy generation and distributed smart networks for localised generation (reducing transmission losses);
• Sustainable transport systems - active transport (walking, cycling), public transport, and transit oriented development (See also Transit Oriented Development),
• Communications – high speed broadband internet, wireless and mobile connectivity,
• Strong resilient communities - social connectivity, community and shared facilities, community intranets, essential and desired services, access to recreation, employment, etc.,
• Ecosystem services – recognising the importance of natural systems and processes in assimilating (processing) wastes, air quality, water quality, influencing microclimate.

Back to top

Make a comment

Infrastructure planning

It is well known and understood that the process of infrastructure planning seeks to provide greater certainty in the provision of essential networks which support communities. Strategically placed (and well planned) infrastructure provides the impetus and support for achieving preferred development patterns, including achieving key policy outcomes.

Governments and industry both must recognise that provision, management and maintenance of major infrastructure systems - roads, transport, water, sewerage & drainage, communications, and delivery of energy requires significant allocation of funds and can remain in situ for long periods. Local government planning schemes may include provision for infrastructure contributions to be levied from developers undertaking projects.

Similarly, some state and regional planning instruments include requirements for the delivery of significant infrastructure projects (transport, water supply, energy, waste and communications) to support growing regional populations. However, integrating the planning and delivery of infrastructure presents significant challenges to both governments and the private development sector, in terms of timing and delivery, costs and obligations, ownership, responsibility, and liability.

To add further complexity, continuing rapid growth in our urban environments is resulting in infrastructure deficits - large accumulated backlogs in infrastructure upgrades, system augmentation, and other much needed work on existing infrastructure systems, and newer demands for infrastructure may go unmet. This raises the question to what extent should/can new development provide for new infrastructure, without impacting on the ability of necessary development (to accommodate growth) to occur? We have essentially two choices – business as usual, or infrastructure which better supports the achievement of more sustainable urban environs (see Worldchanging –Infrastructure for the Future We Want).

There is a need to understand existing infrastructure requirements (and associated challenges), models of planning and provision, and how infrastructure is maintained and managed, in order to understand and recognise opportunities for providing infrastructure in the future using emerging models and an increasing awareness of the need for more sustainable urban environments.

The shift towards sustainable development is providing opportunities for considering alternatives to ‘traditional’ infrastructure systems and management. Stormwater runoff was once a ‘waste’ to be removed from site as soon as possible – it is now a resource to be captured, stored, and reused in landscape/open space irrigation, and in the creation of artificial waterways, wetlands and lakes. Rainwater (captured from roofs), previously discharged again as quickly as possible is now recognised as a valuable resource for use in non-potable applications, from toilet flushing to outdoor uses, reducing demand on treated potable water which is better used for drinking.

Similarly, sewage/waste water is now becoming considered a resource. We may soon see infrastructure put in place for sewer mining (drawing the blackwater component from sewage for high level treatment, disinfection and use in non-potable applications subject to quality), and similarly, reticulation of treated waste water (distributed from waste water treatment plants) for non potable purposes (largely landscape and open space irrigation).

Some developments are also seeking to be increasingly self sufficient – ‘off the grid’. Onsite waste collection and sewage treatment provide the raw fuel for energy generation (biosolids, biogas, etc) while capture, and treatment of all stormwater and roof water, and recycling of waste water provide for all potable and non-potable water needs. These initiatives are also challenging local councils in the way they plan, develop, and charge for infrastructure – those projects which are able to demonstrate a reduction in the overall loading on standard systems are seeking a commensurate reduction in the infrastructure charges levied.

Alternative models of infrastructure provision also raise questions of system reliability, and responsibility for the longer term operation and maintenance of systems. Councils and government agencies may be reluctant to take ownership of systems over which they have had little control, cannot be integrated back into the broader trunk infrastructure system, or for which they have received limited fees for during the assessment/approval process.

Back to top

Make a comment

Case Study - Kawana Waters, Sunshine Coast

The Kawana Waters Master Plan Area encompassing 2,311 hectares of land on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, is being developed under a Development Lease with the State Government, a key purpose of which has been to facilitate development improvements to the land and to deliver key infrastructure outcomes.

Kawana Waters is subject to a Tripartite Development Agreement (State & Local Government and Developer) which relates to the development of planning documents and provision of infrastructure to support the development.

The Master Planning Process for Kawana Waters has included:

• Development Control Plan: Vision Document
• Structure Plan: Planning Scheme (determine infrastructure requirements)
• Neighbourhood Plan: intent statements and use rights
• Precinct Estate Plan: detailed use rights
• Site Development Plan: siting provisions
• Material change of use: Planning Approval

A Community Development Strategy was prepared to identify community infrastructure (social) to direct expenditure of Community Development Fund. Another outcome has been the implementation of the Lake Management Plan which serves to establish processes/mechanisms for the ongoing use and maintenance of the lake system as a key recreational resource.

Development outcomes include the delivery of infrastructure to support a population of 48,500 persons.

Provision of land and funds for social and physical infrastructure including:

• Kawana High School, Primary School
• TAFE
• regional Hospital 1000 beds
• Kawana Aquatic Centre
• Kawana regional sport
• conservation park land
• performing arts centre and library
• 6 community halls
• network of parks
• international rowing lake
• pedestrian and bike paths
• Kawana Way Arterial
• Nicklin Way Major Arterial
• rail corridor
• child care centres
• trunk sewer.

The development has not been without challenges and successes. Positive outcomes include:

• The use of the development agreement to achieve greater certainty in the planning process;
• code assessable applications and ability for planning requirements to be locality specific;
• Small lot design, reduced setbacks and water tanks endorsed long before main stream planning acceptance;
• Certainty in cost of infrastructure;
• Structured master planning process;
• Clear community deliverables;
• Provision of social and physical infrastructure; and
• Agreement binding to land and parties.

Challenges have included:

• Planning through multiple layers of approvals and process;
• Council decision making processes and timeframes have been subject to changes through plan making;
• Continual amendments to elements of development agreement;
• A lack of adequate, regulated and recognised mediation processes between the developer and the Local Authority; and
• Fair apportionment of cost and associated risk in delivery of infrastructure.

Back to top

Make a comment

Key Issues

Benefits

The proper (and adequate) provision of infrastructure is an essential part of urban development – for infill development, brownfield and greenfield projects. The benefits from shifting to more sustainable infrastructure models include:

Economic benefit

• Options for negotiations on infrastructure charges, however may ultimately be offset against additional costs through providing, managing, maintaining developer provided infrastructure systems;
• Offsetting the cost of water for irrigation and other purposes through reclaimed water/stormwater.

Environmental benefit

• Reduced demand on natural resources – energy, water (particularly);
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions through increased efficiency (onsite energy generation, onsite water capture – reduced trunk pumping cost);
• Improved quality of downstream stormwater flows;
• The creation of habitat and improved biodiversity through the establishment of wetlands.

Social/community benefit

• Opportunities to increase social capital through building more resilient, sustainable and self sufficient communities;
• Adding value and interest to public open space through the creation of wetlands etc.

Back to top

Make a comment

Risks

The risks associated with infrastructure do not differ significantly from any other development risks. Market forces, financing, costs of construction and materials, infrastructure costs levied by Councils/Government agencies, costs associated with delays in approvals, meeting strategic planning requirements, and consultation processes are all likely risk factors to be considered.

While the provision of more sustainable (alternative) infrastructure is definitely to be encouraged, some Councils may still have a reluctance to take on these systems in the longer term, in preference for ‘tried and true’ models – water sensitive urban design being a case in point. There is the experience of Councils being reluctant to approve swales, artificial waterways and wetlands, and other WSUD inclusions due to perception of increased maintenance (over maintaining concrete drains) through slashing, litter removal, etc. This is despite the important role that these types of systems play in protecting environmental values (providing artificial habitats & corridors, protecting water quality, and reducing down stream pollutants) and saving costs associated with Councils managing these functions.

Developers and project managers may find that effective long term management of alternative infrastructure can be delivered through community title mechanisms, with costs/risks/etc internalised, rather than handed on to Councils following development ‘handover’.

There are also risks associated with not shifting to more sustainable models of infrastructure. A lack of adequate funding, planning, provision and management of infrastructure is often blamed for many of the adverse issues associated with urban growth. A lack of dams and water supply infrastructure is often blamed for urban water shortages – the solution suggested as being to build more dams, pipes and pumps, rather than capturing water where and when it falls (in cities) and requiring all new development to be increasingly water self sufficient. Similarly, energy supply issues during peak loads are blamed on failing existing infrastructure.

Rather than looking for increased onsite generation and the means to make it more affordable, the focus is turned on repairing existing (perhaps failing) systems.

See also: Worldchanging –Infrastructure for the Future We Want.

Back to top

Make a comment

Savings

The use (and costing) of sustainable infrastructure alternatives is still in its relative infancy. Well known examples of changing infrastructure models include water sensitive urban design (WSUD), transit oriented development, and onsite energy generation. While these are not new development concepts, they are still yet to be taken up more broadly in urban development as ‘business as usual’.

Consequently, it may be difficult to accurately or fully quantify savings for specific infrastructure options, particularly as costs for alternative infrastructure may still not yet be fully identified.

Back to top

Make a comment

Costs

Costs for infrastructure provision vary, from project to project – Council to Council, State to State. Councils may have a schedule of relevant infrastructure charges linked to or included as part of the Planning Scheme, which outlines the relevant charges levied (eg. water supply, sewage, public transport, open space, community facilities). It is important to note that increasing infrastructure charges are frequently identified as partly to blame for increased housing costs (for new development).

Back to top

Make a comment

Barriers

The potential barriers/challenges to be met in the provision of infrastructure are likely to be:

• government agency/planning agency requirements for levels of service, provision of infrastructure, and costs levied (infrastructure charges);
• approval processes – planning requirements/standards/guidelines may not have shifted far enough to make implementing sustainable infrastructure models easy or preferred (eg WSUD and maintenance/risk);
• meeting planning requirements – state and regional planning agencies will identify key infrastructure to be provided either as part of, or necessary in order for development to go ahead. This may impose additional costs on a development which had not been previously considered. The challenge may be to prove that alternative infrastructure proposed by a development can provide the required level of service/amenity that has been identified.

Back to top

Make a comment

Benchmarks

Benchmarks/requirements for infrastructure to be provided by/for development are generally identified in relevant local government planning schemes, regional planning documents and other state/regional planning strategies. For example, a search of Google Australia for ‘regional infrastructure’ provides links to relevant resources for Government and business infrastructure requirements, plans, strategies, and funding options.

Back to top

Make a comment

Development phase actions

Feasibility

In brief, the delivery of sufficient and appropriate infrastructure is essential in ensuring the success of urban development. Key aspects are at the ‘front end’ of the development process, during feasibility and planning stages.

The feasibility analysis will include a determination of infrastructure requirements and costs associated with the proposed development. Infrastructure issues considered during the feasibility stage will include:

• extent/level of service provided by and shortfalls in existing infrastructure - water, sewer, stormwater, communications and internet, community infrastructure and facilities, open space requirements, and public transport;
• identification of planned future provision of essential infrastructure (review of relevant regional strategic plans and policies);
• identification of development sites where existing infrastructure is sufficient to allow for greater density/intensity of development, mixed use and/or greater return on investment (eg. see Transit Oriented Development);
• determination of infrastructure requirements likely to be imposed by the relevant state/local planning authority/ies;
• opportunities for green/alternative infrastructure and the attitude of planning authorities to such alternatives (eg WSUD, recycled water, waste to energy); and
• determination of fees and charges likely to be imposed for infrastructure requirements (infrastructure charges) and any rebates/discounts which might be applicable for sustainable alternatives.

Back to top

Make a comment

Planning

With respect to development infrastructure, the planning stage of development will reflect the findings of the feasibility analysis. Responsibility for delivery of infrastructure may fall to both the relevant planning authorities and the developer – planning, timing and provision of essential and desirable urban infrastructure systems will both drive, and be influenced by the scale and staging of proposed development. A key element will be the development project team undertaking (early) discussions with relevant planning authorities and relevant government agencies to identify specific requirements and opportunities:

• identification of essential and desirable elements and required timing for delivery,
• identification of any relevant standards of service (eg. open space, education and community facilities), and relevant design/delivery standards for infrastructure to be provided,
• identification of threshold levels of population/development size which may necessitate the provision of specific facilities or services,
• identification of potential partnership opportunities for funding and delivery of infrastructure requirements, and ongoing management/maintenance,
• identification of sustainable alternatives to ‘traditional’ built urban systems – eg WSUD, sewer mining, opportunities for reticulation of recycled water for non-potable water requirements, onsite energy generation and grid connection requirements, opportunities for industrial ecology and associated development scale systems.

Back to top

Make a comment

Design

Design and construction stages should reflect the above stages to ensure delivery of infrastructure ‘on the ground’ is consistent with identified standards and local/regional requirements. As indicated, desired standards of service, specific requirements and opportunities for alternative delivery models will have been explored during feasibility and planning, as the lead in to delivery through design and construction phases.

Back to top

Make a comment