Public perceptions of planning: unpacking resident perceptions and experiences of planning systems across Australia
| dc.contributor.author | Ruming, Kristian | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-02-11T13:14:58Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-02-11T13:14:58Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.description | Proceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the south | en |
| dc.description.abstract | The Australian planning system is in a state of unrest with each of the state planning systems implementing widespread reform programs over the past 5-10 years. Planning system reform is also being played out internationally as governments strive to deal with the perceived failings and inadequacies of planning (Campbell et al. 2014). What differentiates Australian planning system reform from that occurring elsewhere is the complexity and multiplicity of systems, agendas and instruments being implemented. Unlike some countries, the Australian planning system is not coordinated by the national government, with constitutional authority for planning resting with the states. For routine planning matters this authority is delegated to local government. Australian planning is also characterised by a combination of discretionary merit-based planning similar to the UK and increasingly a more codified land use planning model found in America. At the centre of these reforms lie the objectives of improving efficiency of development assessment, thereby simultaneously increasing the economic performance of the property market and improving housing affordability via increased supply (Gurran and Phibbs, 2013). To these ends, the primary theme from planning system reform across Australia is the push for economic growth via so called simplification of the planning process. Often expressed as ‘cutting red tape’, the planning system is positioned as a barrier to the effective operation of market mechanisms responsible for delivering (primarily) urban outcomes. The second theme is the push for independence, transparency and de-politicisation. In some states, a trigger for reform has been concerns over corruption or undue influence by some development actors. | |
| dc.description.version | publishedVersion | en |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-85-7785-551-1 | |
| dc.identifier.pageNumber | 225-227 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2650 | |
| dc.language.iso | English | en |
| dc.publisher | AESOP | en |
| dc.rights | openAccess | en |
| dc.rights.license | All Rights Reserved | en |
| dc.source | Proceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the south | en |
| dc.title | Public perceptions of planning: unpacking resident perceptions and experiences of planning systems across Australia | |
| dc.type | conferenceObject | en |
| dc.type.version | publishedVersion |