THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE BASED ...eprints.qut.edu.au/49798/1/Travis_Frew_Thesis.pdfperformance based planning evolved in Queensland which was dependent on prescriptive land

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING IN

QUEENSLAND UNDER THE INTEGRATED

PLANNING ACT 1997: AN EVALUATION OF

PERCEPTIONS AND PLANNING SCHEMES

Travis Graeme Frew

MURP, BSc

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Urban Development

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering

Queensland University of Technology

December 2011

The implementation of performance based planning in Queensland under the Integrated Planning

Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. i

Keywords

Certainty, Effects Based Planning, Flexibility, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Land Use,

Performance Adoption Spectrum, Performance Based Planning, Performance Measurement,

Performance Standards, Plan Performativity, Procedural Performance, Performance Zoning,

Queensland, Substantive Performance, Urban and Regional Planning, Zoning.


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. ii

Abstract

Performance based planning is a form of planning regulation that is not well

understood and the theoretical advantages of this type of planning are rarely achieved in

practice. Normatively, this type of regulation relies on performance standards that are

quantifiable and technically based which are designed to manage the effects of development,

where performance standards provide certainty in respect of the level of performance and

the means of achievement is flexible.

Few empirical studies have attempted to examine how performance based planning

has been conceptualised and implemented in practice. Existing literature is predominately

anecdotal and consultant based (Baker et al. 2006) and has not sought to quantitatively

examine how land use has been managed or determine how context influences

implementation.

The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) operated as Queensland’s principal planning

legislation between March 1998 and December 2009. The IPA prevented Local

Governments from prohibiting development or use and the term zone was absent from the

legislation. While the IPA did not use the term performance based planning, the system is

widely considered to be performance based in practice (e.g. Baker et al. 2006; Steele 2009a,

2009b). However, the degree to which the IPA and the planning system in Queensland is

performance based is debated (e.g. Yearbury 1998; England 2004).

Four research questions guided the research framework using Queensland as the case

study. The questions sought to: determine if there is a common understanding of

performance based planning; identify how performance based planning was expressed under

the IPA; understand how performance based planning was implemented in plans; and

explore the experiences of participants in the planning system.

The research developed a performance adoption spectrum. The spectrum describes

how performance based planning is implemented, ranging between pure and hybrid

interpretations. An ex-post evaluation of seventeen IPA plans sought to determine plan

performativity within the conceptual spectrum. Land use was examined from the procedural

dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and the substantive dimension of

performance (Codes). A documentary analysis and forty one interviews supplemented the

research. The analytical framework considered how context influenced performance based

planning, including whether: the location of the local government affected land use

management techniques; temporal variation in implementation exists; plan-making


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. iii

guidelines affected implementation; different perceptions of the concept exist; this type of

planning applies to a range of spatial scales.

Outcomes were viewed as the medium for determining the acceptability of

development in Queensland, a significant departure from pure approaches found in the

United States. Interviews highlighted the absence of plan-making direction in the IPA, which

contributed to the confusion about the intended direction of the planning system and the

myth that the IPA would guarantee a performance based system. A hybridised form of

performance based planning evolved in Queensland which was dependent on prescriptive

land use zones and specification of land use type, with some local governments going to

extreme lengths to discourage certain activities in a predetermined manner. Context had

varying degrees of influence on plan-making methods. Decision-making was found to be

inconsistent and the system created a range of unforeseen consequences including difficulties

associated with land valuation, increased development speculation, and the role of planners

in court was found to be less critical than in the previous planning system.


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. iv

Table of Contents

Keywords……………………………………………………………………………………………..i

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………ii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………iv

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..xi

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………..xii

List of Planning Scheme Extracts…………………………………………………………………xiv

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………xv

Statement of Authorship…………………………………………………………………………...xvii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….xviii

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 AUTHOR’S INTEREST IN RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 3

1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 4

1.4 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 6

1.5 THESIS OUTLINE ......................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 – PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING ................................................... 9

2.1 PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING DESCRIPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................. 9

2.1.1 The Benefits of Performance Based Approaches: Theory versus Practice .................... 14

2.1.2 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 ORIGINS AND DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING APPROACHES ............................ 16

2.2.1 A Reaction to Prescriptive Regulations .......................................................................... 16

2.2.2 Performance Standards .................................................................................................. 17

2.2.3 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................... 19

2.2.4 Reform Agendas ............................................................................................................. 20

2.2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 21

2.3 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION IN PRACTICE .......................................................................... 21

2.3.1 United States .................................................................................................................. 22

2.3.2 New Zealand ................................................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Queensland, Australia .................................................................................................... 25

2.3.4 Hybridised Implementation – The Mixing of Planning Methods .................................... 25

2.3.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 26

2.4 RESEARCH DEFINITION ............................................................................................................. 27

2.5 PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING LITERATURE IN NORTH AMERICA, NEW ZEALAND

AND AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................................ 30

2.5.1 Performance Based Planning in North America ............................................................ 30


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. v

2.5.1.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 31

2.5.1.2 Non-Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 36

2.5.1.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 42

2.5.2 Performance Based Planning in New Zealand .............................................................. 43

2.5.2.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 43

2.5.2.2 Non Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 48

2.5.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 50

2.5.3 Performance Based Planning in Australia .................................................................... 50

2.5.3.1 Plan Based .............................................................................................................................. 50

2.5.3.2 Non-Plan Based ...................................................................................................................... 58

2.5.3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 65

2.5.4 Research Gap ................................................................................................................ 66

CHAPTER 3 – METHODS .................................................................................................. 68

3.1 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES, QUESTIONS, AND SCOPE .................................................................. 68

3.1.1 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 68

3.1.2 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 69

3.1.2.1 A summary of the Methods of Analysis ................................................................................. 71

3.1.3 Research Contributions ................................................................................................. 73

3.1.4 Scope of Research .......................................................................................................... 73

3.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................................... 74

3.2.1 The Performance Adoption Spectrum ............................................................................ 74

3.2.2 Performance Primacy .................................................................................................... 75

3.2.3 Performativity Dimensions ............................................................................................ 76

3.2.4 Spatial Performance ...................................................................................................... 79

3.2.5 Planning Issues and Evaluation .................................................................................... 80

3.2.6 Contextual Variables/ Influences of Performance ......................................................... 81

3.2.7 Analytical Framework Diagram .................................................................................... 82

3.3 METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 84

3.3.1 Case Study Design ......................................................................................................... 84

3.3.2 Documentary Analysis (Non-Planning Scheme) ............................................................ 85

3.3.3 Interview Methods ......................................................................................................... 86

3.3.3.1 Interviews and the Analytical Framework .............................................................................. 87

3.3.3.2 Participant Selection ............................................................................................................... 88

3.3.3.3 Pilot Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 89

3.3.3.4 Interview Process and Questions ............................................................................................ 90

3.3.3.5 Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 93

3.3.4 Planning Scheme Evaluation Methods .......................................................................... 94

3.3.4.1 Planning Scheme Evaluation and the Analytical Framework ................................................. 94

3.3.4.2 Planning Scheme Selection Process ....................................................................................... 96


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. vi

3.3.4.3 Determining Planning Scheme Performativity...................................................................... 101

3.3.4.4 Structuring the Planning Scheme Evaluation ........................................................................ 102

3.3.4.5 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................ 105

3.3.4.6 Refinements to the Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................. 109

3.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 111

CHAPTER 4 – THE INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997: BEGINNINGS,

KEY ELEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ...................................................................... 113

4.1 URBAN LAND USE PLANNING IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................... 115

4.2 PRE-IPA PLANNING SYSTEM IN QUEENSLAND ....................................................................... 116

4.2.1 Pre-IPA 1997 Planning Schemes ................................................................................. 117

4.3 PRE-IPA 1997 REFORM ISSUES AND DRIVERS ........................................................................ 117

4.3.1 Micro-Economic Reform and ESD ............................................................................... 118

4.3.2 Is it too Complex? & New Planning and Development Legislation Discussion

Papers ...................................................................................................................................... 118

4.3.3 Planning, Environment and Development Assessment Bill (PEDA) ............................ 120

4.3.4 The Integrated Planning Bill 1997 ............................................................................... 120

4.4 THE INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 ................................................................................. 120

4.4.1 Key IPA Concepts ......................................................................................................... 121

4.4.1.1 The Purpose of IPA and Advancing the Purpose .................................................................. 121

4.4.1.2 The Concept of “Development” ............................................................................................ 122

4.4.2 Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) .................................................... 123

4.4.2.1 IDAS Assessment Categories ............................................................................................... 124

4.4.2.2 Types of Approvals under IDAS .......................................................................................... 126

4.4.2.3 IDAS Decision-making Rules ............................................................................................... 128

4.4.3 Planning Instruments ................................................................................................... 129

4.4.3.1 Key Elements of Planning Schemes ..................................................................................... 129

4.4.3.2 Core Matters for Planning Schemes ...................................................................................... 130

4.4.3.3 Other Key Directions of Planning Schemes .......................................................................... 130

4.4.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 131

4.5 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE IPA (1998-2006) ........................................................... 132

4.5.1 Legislative Bills ............................................................................................................ 133

4.5.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 135

4.6 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING BILL 2009 ...................................................................................... 136

4.7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 137

CHAPTER 5 – PERCEPTIONS & INTERPRETATIONS OF PERFORMANCE

BASED PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 139

5.1 IS THERE A RANGE OF INTERPRETATIONS OF PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING? .................. 139

5.1.1 What is Performance Based Planning? ........................................................................ 140

5.1.1.1 Is Performance Based Planning the Correct Term? .............................................................. 140


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. vii

5.1.1.2 What Performance Based Planning Is Not ............................................................................ 141

5.1.1.3 Outcomes, Impacts and Effects ............................................................................................ 141

5.1.1.4 Other Views .......................................................................................................................... 144

5.1.2 What is the Purpose and Function of Performance Based Planning? ......................... 145

5.1.2.1 Flexibility ............................................................................................................................. 145

5.1.2.2 Certainty ............................................................................................................................... 146

5.1.2.3 Other Views .......................................................................................................................... 146

5.1.3 Is Performance Based Planning Suitable at all Spatial Scales? .................................. 147

5.1.3.1 The ‘Ideal’ Spatial Reach of Performance Based Planning .................................................. 147

5.1.3.2 Is Decision-Making Performance Based at Broad Spatial Scales? ....................................... 148

5.1.3.3 Is there a Spatial ‘Comfort Zone’ in Performance Based Planning? ..................................... 150

5.1.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 152

5.2 HOW HAS PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING BEEN CONCEPTUALISED UNDER THE IPA

1997? ................................................................................................................................. 156

5.2.1 Legislation versus Implementation .............................................................................. 157

5.2.2 Performance Based Planning and Connectivity with Chapters of IPA 1997 ............... 158

5.2.2.1 Chapter 1 (Purpose and ESD) ............................................................................................... 158

5.2.2.2 Chapter 2 (Planning) ............................................................................................................. 159

5.2.2.3 Chapter 3 (IDAS) ................................................................................................................. 160

5.2.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 161

5.3 HOW HAS PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING BEEN CONCEPTUALISED IN IPA PLANS? ........... 163

5.3.1 Standard Plan Components ......................................................................................... 163

5.3.1.1 Desired Environmental Outcomes ........................................................................................ 164

5.3.1.2 Codes .................................................................................................................................... 166

5.3.1.3 Assessment Tables................................................................................................................ 169

5.3.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 170

CHAPTER 6 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED PLANNING

ACT 1997 ............................................................................................................................. 173

6.1 EARLY IPA PLANNING SCHEMES ........................................................................................... 174

6.2 PLAN-MAKING GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................... 175

6.2.1 Plan-making Guidelines - 1999 ................................................................................... 176

6.2.2 Plan-making Guidelines - 2000 ................................................................................... 178

6.2.3 Plan-making Guideline - 2002 ..................................................................................... 180

6.2.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 185

6.3 THE IMPACT OF THE IPA 1997 PLAN-MAKING GUIDELINES .................................................. 188

6.3.1 Why were Plan-Making Guidelines needed? ............................................................... 189

6.3.2 Conceptual Debates and Plan-Making Guideline Responses ...................................... 190

6.3.2.1 Inconsistent and Consistent Uses .......................................................................................... 190

6.3.2.2 Role of Code Assessment ..................................................................................................... 193


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. viii

6.3.2.3 Tables of Development ......................................................................................................... 194

6.3.2.4 Weakened Strategic Planning Elements ................................................................................ 194

6.3.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 195

6.4 IPA REFORM POST 2005 ......................................................................................................... 197

6.4.1 Dynamic Planning for a Growing State Discussion Paper (2006)............................... 199

6.4.1.1 Local Government Planning Policy ...................................................................................... 199

6.4.1.2 Integrated Development Assessment System ....................................................................... 200

6.4.1.3 Interpretations and Perceptions of Performance Based Planning .......................................... 201

6.4.1.4 Dynamic Planning for a Growing State Public Consultation ................................................ 201

6.4.1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 202

6.4.2 Planning for a Prosperous Queensland (2007) ............................................................ 203

6.4.2.1 Standard Planning Scheme Provisions .................................................................................. 203

6.4.2.2 Decision-making Processes .................................................................................................. 204

6.4.2.3 Interpretations and Perceptions of Performance Based Planning .......................................... 205

6.4.2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 206

6.4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 207

CHAPTER 7 – MANAGING LAND USE IN PLANNING SCHEMES ....................... 209

7.1 PROCEDURAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 209

7.1.1 Procedural Typologies ................................................................................................. 210

7.1.1.1 Basic Assessment Categories ................................................................................................ 210

7.1.1.2 Modified Assessment Categories .......................................................................................... 212

7.1.1.3 Procedural Assessment Table Criteria Summary Findings ................................................... 221

7.1.2 Procedural Contextual Tests ........................................................................................ 223

7.1.2.1 Basic Assessment Levels Only ............................................................................................. 224

7.1.2.2 Modified Assessment Levels ................................................................................................ 225

7.1.2.3 Procedural Contextual Summary Findings ........................................................................... 226

7.2 SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ 227

7.2.1 Substantive Typologies ................................................................................................. 228

7.2.1.1 No Substantive Land Use Criteria ........................................................................................ 228

7.2.1.2 Negative Land Use Criteria .................................................................................................. 228

7.2.1.3 Positive Land Use Criteria .................................................................................................... 236

7.2.1.4 Mixed Land Use Criteria ...................................................................................................... 243

7.2.1.5 Impact of Positive and Negative Criteria Combined ............................................................. 248

7.2.1.6 Substantive Code Criteria Summary Findings ...................................................................... 250

7.2.2 Substantive Contextual Tests ........................................................................................ 253

7.2.2.1 No Land Use Criteria in Codes ............................................................................................. 253

7.2.2.2 Direct (Negative with No Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes ....................................... 254

7.2.2.3 Direct (Positive with No Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes ........................................ 256

7.2.2.4 Mixed (Positive with Discretion) Land Use Criteria in Codes .............................................. 257

7.2.2.5 Substantive Context Summary Findings ............................................................................... 258


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. ix

7.3 PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE COMBINED ............................................... 259

7.4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 262

7.4.1 Performance Adoption Spectrum/ Comparisons with Literature ................................. 264

7.4.2 Political Decisions and IPA ......................................................................................... 265

7.4.3 Historical Context ........................................................................................................ 267

7.4.4 Practical Implementation Responses ........................................................................... 268

7.4.4.1 Plan-making Variation .......................................................................................................... 269

7.4.4.2 Plan-making Guidance following the IPA’s Commencement .............................................. 270

7.4.4.3 Proscriptive ‘Alarm Bells’ .................................................................................................... 271

7.4.5 Perceived Risk ............................................................................................................. 272

7.4.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 272

CHAPTER 8 – EXPERIENCES IN PRACTICE ............................................................ 274

8.1 PLAN-MAKING EXPERIENCES ................................................................................................ 274

8.1.1 Flexibility and Certainty - Where Do You Draw the Line? ......................................... 274

8.1.2 Bullet Proofing ............................................................................................................ 276

8.1.3 Vertical Integration ..................................................................................................... 277

8.1.4 Temporal Changes in Expression in the IPA Plans ..................................................... 278

8.1.5 Reductionist Drafting Techniques ............................................................................... 280

8.2 DECISION-MAKING EXPERIENCES.......................................................................................... 282

8.2.1 Inflexible and Inconsistent Decision-Making .............................................................. 282

8.2.2 Spatial Context – Differences of Opinion .................................................................... 287

8.2.3 Site Size and Flexible Decision-Making ...................................................................... 289

8.2.4 Local Government versus State Government ............................................................... 291

8.3 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................... 292

8.3.1 Disincentives for Making Performance Based Applications ....................................... 292

8.3.2 The Role of Planners in Court ..................................................................................... 293

8.3.3 Development Speculation ............................................................................................ 294

8.3.4 Land Valuation ............................................................................................................ 295

8.4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 295

CHAPTER 9 – CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 302

9.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 303

9.1.1 Revisiting the Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 317

9.1.2 What is Performance Based Planning in Queensland? ............................................... 320

9.2 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 321

9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 323

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 328

Appendix A (Chapter 3 Appendices A.1-A.12)… ………………………………………………..344


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. x

Appendix B (Chapter 4 Appendices B.1-B.15)…………………………………………………..394

Appendix C (Chapter 5 Appendices C.1-C.2)……..………………………………………………418

Appendix D (Chapter 6 Appendices D.1-D.38)....…………………………………………………423

Appendix E (Chapter 7 Appendices E.1-E.2)……………………………………………………...474


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xi

List of Figures

FIGURE 2.1 – THE PERFORMANCE ADOPTION SPECTRUM. ................................................................................ 28

FIGURE 3.1 – THE PERFORMANCE ADOPTION SPECTRUM (ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK). .......................................... 74

FIGURE 3.2 – PERFORMANCE PRIMACY. ........................................................................................................ 76

FIGURE 3.3 – PERFORMATIVITY DIMENSIONS. ................................................................................................ 78

FIGURE 3.4 – SPATIAL PERFORMANCE. ......................................................................................................... 80

FIGURE 3.5 – PLANNING ISSUES. .................................................................................................................. 81

FIGURE 3.6 – ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK. ...................................................................................................... 83

FIGURE 3.7 – INTERVIEW AND RESEARCH DESIGN RELATIONSHIP. ...................................................................... 87

FIGURE 3.8 – PLAN ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DESIGN RELATIONSHIP. ................................................................ 95

FIGURE 3.9 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS SELECTED FOR EVALUATION. ........................................................... 100

FIGURE 4.1 – IDAS ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES. ............................................................................................ 125

FIGURE 6.1 – OUTCOME HIERARCHY. ......................................................................................................... 182

FIGURE 7.1 – BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVELS. ................................................................................................... 211

FIGURE 7.2 – MODIFIED PROCEDURAL MEASURES. ....................................................................................... 214

FIGURE 7.3 – IDENTIFIED ‘PROCEDURAL’ SPECTRUM. ..................................................................................... 221

FIGURE 7.4 – NEGATIVE SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ....................................................................................... 231

FIGURE 7.5 – POSITIVE SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ......................................................................................... 238

FIGURE 7.6 – MIXED SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES. ........................................................................................... 246

FIGURE 7.7 – IDENTIFIED ‘SUBSTANTIVE’ SPECTRUM. .................................................................................... 252

FIGURE 7.8 – COMBINED ‘SUBSTANTIVE’ AND ‘PROCEDURAL’ SPECTRUM. ......................................................... 261


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xii

List of Tables

TABLE 2.1 – IPA CHALLENGES AND ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 64

TABLE 3.1 – RESEARCH QUESTION, METHOD, ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE, RESEARCH OUTPUTS AND RELEVANT

THESIS CHAPTER MATRIX .................................................................................................................... 72

TABLE 3.2 – PROCEDURAL PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS .................................................................................... 78

TABLE 3.3 – SUBSTANTIVE PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS ................................................................................... 79

TABLE 3.4 – CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES/ INFLUENCES ON PERFORMANCE ............................................................... 82

TABLE 3.5 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS (NON-PLAN) ............................ 86

TABLE 3.6 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .................................................... 88

TABLE 3.7 – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 91

TABLE 3.8 – RELEVANCE OF CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES TO PLANNING SCHEME EVALUATION..................................... 96

TABLE 3.9 – PLANNING SCHEME SELECTION AND CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES .......................................................... 97

TABLE 3.10 – MEASUREMENT CRITERIA ...................................................................................................... 104

TABLE 4.1 – PEDA AND PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING .............................................................................. 120

TABLE 4.2 – THE PURPOSE OF IPA .............................................................................................................. 121

TABLE 4.3 – ADVANCING THE PURPOSE OF THE IPA ....................................................................................... 122

TABLE 4.4 – DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 123

TABLE 4.5 – IDAS STAGES ........................................................................................................................ 124

TABLE 4.6 – ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES AND DECISION-MAKING........................................................................ 126

TABLE 4.7 – WHEN IS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NECESSARY? .......................................................................... 127

TABLE 4.8 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ........................................................................................................... 127

TABLE 4.9 – TYPES OF PRELIMINARY APPROVALS ........................................................................................... 128

TABLE 4.10 – CORE MATTERS ................................................................................................................... 130

TABLE 4.11 – IPA LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................. 133

TABLE 5.1 – BASIC INTERPRETATIONS .......................................................................................................... 142

TABLE 6.1 – LIST OF IPA PLAN-MAKING GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 175

TABLE 6.2 – GUIDELINE 1/02 EXTRACT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 181

TABLE 6.3 – LIST OF REFORM DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 198

TABLE 7.1– QUALIFICATION TYPES .............................................................................................................. 215

TABLE 7.2 – POLICY POSITION LABELS ......................................................................................................... 218

TABLE 7.3 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVELS ONLY ....................................................... 224

TABLE 7.4 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVELS .......................................................... 225

TABLE 7.5 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF NEGATIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES .......................... 229

TABLE 7.6 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF POSITIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ........................... 236

TABLE 7.7 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FREQUENCY OF MIXED LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES .............................. 244

TABLE 7.8 – COMBINED IMPACT OF DIRECT (POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE) LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ..................... 249


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xiii

TABLE 7.9 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH NO LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ...................................................... 253

TABLE 7.10 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH NEGATIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ........................................... 255

TABLE 7.11 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH POSITIVE LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ............................................ 256

TABLE 7.12 – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH MIXED LAND USE CRITERIA IN CODES ............................................... 257


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xiv

List of Planning Scheme Extracts

EXAMPLE 7.1 – BASIC ASSESSMENT LEVEL .................................................................................................... 212

EXAMPLE 7.2 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 1) ......................................................................... 216

EXAMPLE 7.3 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 2A) ........................................................................ 219

EXAMPLE 7.4 – MODIFIED ASSESSMENT LEVEL (CATEGORY 2B) ........................................................................ 220

EXAMPLE 7.5 – NEGATIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1) ............................................................................... 232





EXAMPLE 7.10 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1A) ............................................................................. 239

EXAMPLE 7.11 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1B) ............................................................................. 239

EXAMPLE 7.12 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 2) ............................................................................... 240

EXAMPLE 7.13 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 3) ............................................................................... 241

EXAMPLE 7.14 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 4A) ............................................................................. 242

EXAMPLE 7.15 – POSITIVE CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 4B) ............................................................................. 243

EXAMPLE 7.16 – MIXED CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 1) .................................................................................. 247

EXAMPLE 7.17 – MIXED CODE CRITERIA (CATEGORY 2) .................................................................................. 248

EXAMPLE 7.18 – LOGAN 2006 (CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF CODE CRITERIA) ......................................................... 250


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xv

List of Abbreviations

• ACT (Australian Capital Territory)

• AMCORD (Australian Model Code for Residential Design)

• AS (Assessment Table)

• BCA (Benefit Cost Analysis)

• DA (Development Assessment)

• DA Team (Development Assessment Team)

• DEOs (Desired Environmental Outcomes)

• DILGEF (Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)

• DCILGP (Department of Communication, Information, Local Government and

Planning)

• DHLGP (Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning)

• DIP (Department of Infrastructure and Planning)

• DLGP (Department of Local Government and Planning)

• DLGPSR (Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation)

• ESD (Ecological Sustainable Development)

• ESP (Ecological Sustainability Principles)

• IDAS (Integrated Development Assessment System)

• IPA 1997 (Integrated Planning Act 1997)

• IPOLA (Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Act)

• KPI (Key Performance Indicator)

• LAP (Local Area Plan)

• LARP (Local Approvals Review Program)

• LG (Local Government)

• LGA (Local Government Area)

• LGA 1993 (Local Government Act)

• LGMS (Local Growth Management Strategy)


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xvi

• LGPP (Local Government Planning Policy)

• MCU (Material Change of Use)

• NSW (New South Wales)

• NPM (New Public Management)

• OP (Operational Principles)

• P & E (Planning and Environment)

• PBP (Performance Based Planning)

• PEA 1990 (Local Government [Planning and Environment] Act 1990)

• PEDA Bill (Planning, Environment and Development Assessment Bill)

• PIA (Planning Institute of Australia)

• PPIP (Policy-Plan/Program-Implementation-Process)

• PSP (Planning Scheme Policy)

• RMA (Resource Management Act 1990)

• RoL (Reconfiguring a Lot)

• SEQRP (South East Queensland Regional Plan)

• SPA 2009 (Sustainable Planning Act 2009)

• SPP (State Planning Policies)

• TOD (Transit Oriented Development)


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xvii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: _________________________

Date: _________________________


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xviii

Acknowledgments

This PhD has been an especially trying time for me and my family. It has been a

roller coaster ride oscillating between highs and lows interspersed with milestones which at

the time seem significant but in the end were just another small step towards another

milestone. This ongoing cycle of events is what a PhD is and you need to convince yourself

on a daily basis there is light at the end of the tunnel in order to make it through. It is quite

unusual in life to spend so much time focussed on one thing. My PhD journey has therefore

been my own Bermuda Triangle torn between family, study and consultancy work, never

being able to devote all your energy to any one particular thing for long periods of time. So

to me, a PhD is a testament to dedication and patience.

The dedication and patience though is not all of my own and I have many people to

thank along this journey. First and foremost is my wife Maria who has stuck with me

through thick and thin, which got particularly rough when the scholarship ran out. We have

had to do it tough for quite a while and at the same time provide the best we could for Liam

and Olivia our two children who were born during the course of the PhD. I hope that this

hard work will pay off for all of us. I also need to thank the in-laws and out-laws, that is,

both sets of Mums and Dads, who are both great sources of support, having different and

admirable qualities.

I must also thank Professor Doug Baker and Dr Paul Donehue for their ongoing

support and belief that I will get things done. Doug has the ability to get people motivated.

His bigger picture views and experience were valuable assets and he was patient in my

transition from consultancy work to academia which was a challenging time. Paul came in as

a pinch hitter in terms of helping me convert ideas into reality at a critical point. Between

Doug and Paul, I had a great team who complemented each other, and fortunately for me,

were genuinely interested in my research which was critical to me getting through. The

number of hours that Supervisors put into research is quite amazing when you have an

appreciation of their broader workloads and responsibilities. Based on my observations, the

responsibilities imposed on academics appear to be quite unreasonable at times which is

compounded by a university environment that always seems to be cutting funds but

expecting more from its staff.

I would also like to extend my thanks to Humphreys Reynolds Perkins Planning

Consultants and in particular David Perkins, who I have had a long association with. There is

no doubt that Dave probably thought I would never finish but to his credit he has let me

work when I’ve needed to work and let me have time off when I’ve needed to have time off.


Act 1997: An evaluation of perceptions and planning schemes. xix

Without this type of support and flexible working arrangements, none of this would have

been possible. In addition, I would like to thank the interview participants and any other

person who gave up their time to assist in this research.

I would also like to thank my circle of friends. I have divided these groups of friends

into Uni friends and non-uni friends for convenience. To my mates at Uni, we have had

some great times going out to the pubs and restaurants, not to mention sitting around at lunch

time talking about anything and everything - most of it unrelated to Uni. This is precisely

what we needed though as we all shared the same ups and downs with our studies. So thanks

especially to Matt, Dave, Stu, Massi and Victoria and there are a bunch of others who were

lucky enough to have finished much earlier. I would hate to think how much we have spent

at Merlo buying coffee in the last few years! To my other friends, I can only thank you for

always asking the same question I knew was coming – are you finished yet? My answer has

not changed – don’t ask!

Last but not least, my PhD was not fuelled on an empty stomach or without

recreational pursuits. First, I need to thank all breweries for their continuing beer production

and my desire to do my best at recycling as many beer bottles as possible in this lifetime.

Second, if it was not for mountain biking, I don’t know where I would be. Mountain biking

to me is the best sport out there. It’s adrenaline pumping fun, good exercise and a great way

to meet people. As such, I would like to thank my regular riding crew for keeping me sane

and let me pretend I have some mates. The trip to NZ was awesome and hopefully we will

do it again this time in Whistler. Oh by the way Maria, I will always want a new bike. You

should know this by now.

Travis Frew

December 2011

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Performance based planning is a form of planning regulation that is not well

understood. The theoretical advantages of this type of planning are rarely achieved in

practice. Implementation methods vary considerably and are context dependent. No

empirical studies have attempted to quantitatively examine how land use is managed in this

type of regulation. No empirical studies have examined how context affects implementation

or whether performance based planning has the same conceptual meaning and function

across a range of perspectives in the planning process.

In theory, performance based planning is a type of planning regulation that relies on

quantitative performance standards to manage the effects of development and land use. It is

said to balance certainty and flexibility whereby the performance standards set the

quantitative benchmark to be achieved and the method of achievement is flexible, and is

argued to have many advantages over traditional regulation such as prescriptive zoning and

standards (e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Baker et al. 2006). Pure interpretations of

performance based planning are theoretically and conceptually less concerned with what a

activity is called and more concerned with managing the impacts or effects of that activity

(e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Yearbury 1998; England 2004; Ericksen et al. 2004;

Baker et al. 2006).

In practice, hybridised performance based planning approaches are prevalent. Hybrid

performance based approaches combine traditional planning mechanisms such as

prescriptive land use requirements with a variety of performance measures, including

quantitative performance standards and discretionary decision-making criteria. These

implementation approaches can be described as falling within a performance adoption

spectrum.

The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997) operated in Queensland (Australia)

between March 1998 and December 2009 and was the principal planning legislation. The

IPA 1997 represented a significant reorientation of planning in Queensland, a shift that

sought to integrate different levels of government under a single assessment framework and

promote innovative development. The IPA 1997 set out the requirements for managing the

planning process by specifying what a plan could contain and how development proposals

could be decided.


While the IPA 1997 did not use the term performance based planning, the system is

widely considered to be performance based in practice (e.g. Baker et al. 2006; Steele 2009a,

2009b). This is because a key tenet of the IPA 1997 was to prevent Local Government from

prohibiting development or use, although a plan was able to regulate the use of premises by

applying a code. In addition, the term zone was absent from the legislation. When the IPA

1997 commenced, some 123 local governments were required to prepare a new plan.

Queensland therefore provides a unique opportunity to examine how performance

based planning was implemented. However, the degree with which the IPA and the planning

system in Queensland is performance based is debated. For example, Yearbury (1998)

claimed that the IPA made allowance for performance based planning while England (2004)

believes it was a core objective of the IPA.

Determining how performance based planning has been perceived/ interpreted and

implemented in Queensland is therefore the core objective of this research. Research,

particularly quantitative research, into this type of planning is very limited. In the

Queensland context, this research has set out the following goals which are advanced by four

research questions presented later is this Chapter. These goals are to:

A. Understand what the intent and purpose of performance based planning is

conceptually;

B. Determine what parts of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 have a nexus with

performance based planning;

C. Explore how land use has been managed and how performance is measured in

planning schemes prepared under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and understand

why variation, if any, exists; and

D. Investigate the experiences of stakeholders within the Queensland planning system.

The research has been advanced using three primary methods within a broader

examination of Queensland, which is the overall case study. The methods have included an

analysis of legislative and non-legislative documentary sources using content analysis

techniques, the quantitative ex-post evaluation of seventeen planning schemes, and forty one

participant interviews.

This chapter outlines the author’s background and interest in the research (Section

1.1), the research context (Section 1.2), research hypothesis and questions (Section 1.3);

research framework (Section 1.4); and thesis outline (Section 1.5).


1.1 Author’s Interest in Research

The author of this research is a planner and has worked in the public and private

sector in Queensland, Australia and the United Kingdom for over a decade. The author has a

keen interest in plan-making and has observed the plan-making challenges and responses

that evolved in Queensland during the period of the IPA 1997. Implementation of the

system, which is widely agreed to be performance based in practice, has been heavily

criticised for not living up to expectations. The author’s professional interests in plan-making

and challenges observed during the period of the IPA prompted interest in this research.

1.2 Research Context

Performance based planning is touted as a type of planning regulation said to “right

many of the wrongs” of prescriptive zoning and standards (e.g. Kendig 1980). The standard

prescriptive model of planning has been widely criticised for its inflexibility and inability to

respond to changing circumstances, owing to its predetermined blueprint approach that

separates land uses on the basis of perceived incompatibilities with higher and lower order

land uses (e.g. Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988).

Rather than be preoccupied with the type of activity being proposed, performance

based planning is concerned with managing the impacts or effects of that land use, and is

thus a flexible land use planning approach (Kendig 1980; Porter et al. 1988; Yearbury 1998;

England 2004; Ericksen et al. 2004; e.g. Baker et al. 2006). Normatively, performance based

planning relies on performance standards to achieve this aim.

Little robust academic research has been undertaken which examines how

performance based planning has been conceptualised and implemented in practice and

existing literature is predominately non-empirical and consultant based (Baker et al. 2006).

Available research has not sought to quantitatively examine how land use has been managed

across a range of plans with different locational characteristics from a procedural and

substantive standpoint in a performance based environment. Nor have the contextual

influences affecting implementation methods been explored, or to what degree temporal

variation of implementation methods exists, although Porter (1998) has observed that this

form of planning regulation has often been abandoned or amalgamated with traditional

prescriptive planning approaches.

In North America contextual assumptions have suggested that performance based

planning is more suitable in high growth locations and for new development only (Exner and

Sawchuck 1996a), more suitable in pro-development municipalities and high growth

locations (Leung and Harper 2000), typically limited to rural and greenfield areas of cities


(John A Humphreys Associates 2002), and is more amendable to site-based planning

(Phalen 1983). In New Zealand, contextual based plan research has been typically limited to

ex-post plan quality evaluations (e.g. Ericksen et al. 2004) which is not the topic of the

research herein. In Queensland, contextual assumptions are limited to Wright (2001a) who

argued that performance based planning is more suitable to greenfield locations rather than

urban or peri-urban locations and Baker et al. (2006) who pointed out that the approach was

too site focussed.

The degree to which the IPA and the planning system in Queensland is performance

based is debated. In this regard, the IPA 1997 prevented Local Governments from being able

to prohibit development or use and did not refer to zones as a necessary pre-requisite for

plan-making. This was a significant departure from the former planning system that had

relied on prescriptive regulation for many decades. Furthermore, the IPA 1997 required

outcomes and measures in plans but specified little other detail within the legislation.

Compounding the limited plan-making direction in the legislation was an absence of non-

statutory guidance for plan-making at the IPA’s commencement. Therefore plan-making

under the IPA, at least in the early period, was weakly specified and methods of

implementation were not clear.

The absence of detailed plan-making guidance under the IPA meant that early plan-

makers were tasked with determining how to formulate plans and decide how to manage

land use when prohibitions were no longer permitted, how to spatially manage land use when

zones were not referred to, how to decide what type of measures to employ. This dilemma

ultimately resulted in a range of performance based implementation methods, some more

experimental than others.

1.3 Research Hypotheses and Questions

A variety of performance based implementation methods were observed in the

literature. This variation provides an opportunity to examine how and to what extent

performance based planning was implemented in Queensland plans and enables an

understanding of how it was perceived and interpreted in practice. In this research it was

hypothesised that:

A. An adoption spectrum exists in Queensland with respect to the application of

performance based planning. This is because context influences how performance based

planning is conceptualised and implemented, including perception, spatial context,

location, time of adoption, and plan-making guidance.


The hypothesis was advanced by four research questions. The research questions are

presented below:

(1) What is the concept of ‘performance based planning’ in planning trying to achieve?

Is there a range of interpretations?

Purpose of Question: The purpose of the question is designed to determine if there is a

common understanding of performance based planning across a range of perspectives in

an international context. Determining whether there are different conceptual and

practical interpretations of performance based planning is fundamental to understanding

this type of planning from a Queensland perspective.

(2) How has performance based planning been conceptualised under the Integrated

Planning Act 1997 and is there a range of interpretations?

Purpose of Question: While detailed decision-making processes were included in the

IPA, few plan-making requirements were provided. Determining how performance

based planning is expressed under the IPA is fundamental to the understanding of how it

was implemented in the Queensland context.

(3) How has performance based planning been implemented within Queensland’s

planning schemes prepared under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and is there a

range of expressions?

Objective of Question: Determining how performance based planning has been

expressed in plans is fundamental to understanding how it was implemented in practice

from a procedural and substantive standpoint.

(4) What are the implementation experiences when using the Integrated Planning Act

1997 planning schemes?

Purpose of Question: The purpose of the question is to determine why variation in

implementation occurred, if any, and also to understand the advantages and limitations

of performance based planning.


1.4 Research Framework

A variety of performance based implementation methods were observed in the

literature. This variation was developed into a performance adoption spectrum (see Chapter

2). This spectrum was then integrated within an analytical framework in Chapter 3, which

guided the research and case study analysis. A small number of the key elements of the

analytical framework are presented below.

The Performance Adoption Spectrum captures how performance based planning is

expressed and ranges between pure and hybrid interpretations. Plan Performativity is a

relative comparison by which land use is managed in plans having regard to the procedural

dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and the substantive dimension of

performance (Codes). These dimensions can be used to determine whether land use is

managed directly or indirectly in plans, where direct measures of land use performance (e.g.

prescriptive zones or the proscriptive specification of land use appropriateness) would

suggest a hybridised performance based planning approach.

The documentary analysis and interviews were used to bolster the findings of the plan

evaluations according to those who are ‘on the ground’ and in turn understand why

differences of opinion existed, if any.

The analytical framework also considers context, and the degree to which context

influences the implementation of performance based planning in Queensland. Contextual

tests included:

whether the location of the local government affected how land use was expressed in

plans;

whether over time flexible performance measures are replaced in favour of more

certain performance measures;

to what degree the Departmental plan-making guidelines affected the expression of

performance based planning;

whether different perceptions of the concept exist; and

whether performance based planning is applicable at a variety of spatial scales.

1.5 Thesis Outline

The following section provides a brief overview of each chapter for completeness.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of performance based planning, examining the

theoretical (or normative) elements of this type of planning regulation. The benefits of this


type of planning regulation, origins and drivers, and methods of implementation are

compared and are developed into a comprehensive definition of performance based planning

to guide the research. The definitional spectrum of performance based planning is wide, and

ranges between pure and hybrid approaches (the Performance Adoption Spectrum). The

chapter is completed with a detailed examination of the existing literature and empirical

review from North America, New Zealand and Australia.

Chapter 3 outlines the research hypothesis and research questions and specifies the

research contributions. The chapter includes an analytical framework that draws together the

literature and further develops the Performance Adoption Spectrum for the purposes of

examining the implementation of performance based planning in Queensland (the case

study). The case study is explored via three main forms of inquiry. This includes a statutory

and non-statutory documentary analysis; an ex-post evaluation of seventeen planning

schemes; and forty one participant interviews. The chapter concludes with a description of

the research limitations.

Chapter 4 commences with an overview of planning in Australia and Queensland for

contextual purposes. The chapter then describes the pre-IPA reform agenda that commenced

in the 1990’s, culminating in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997). The chapter also

overviews the key statutory decision-making elements and plan-making elements of the IPA

1997 as well the legislative amendments (from commencement to 2006), in order to

understand how planning was implemented and how performance based planning was

described and expressed during the period of the IPA.

Chapter 5 examines how performance based planning was conceptualised and

interpreted in Queensland from the perspective of interview participants. The chapter sought

participant views on the concept, function and spatial application of performance based

planning; how the concept was embodied in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997);

and finally identifies the primary performance based plan components within the system.

Chapter 6 examines the key non-statutory documents that were produced during the

IPA’s tenure by the State Government. These included a range of plan-making guidelines

and discussion papers. The documents provided an insight into how performance based

planning was described and translated into practice and also conveyed experiences in the

planning system. The chapter is supplemented by participant interviews which discuss the

impact of the plan-making guidelines on how performance based planning was interpreted

and expressed in practice.


Chapter 7 examines how land use was managed in plans to determine their relative

plan performativity across seventeen local government plans based on the procedural

dimension of performance (Assessment Tables) and substantive dimension of performance

(Codes). The chapter develops the land use findings into typologies and examines the

influence of context on methods of implementation.

Chapter 8 examines experiences in practice which include plan-making experiences,

decision-making experiences, and a range of unexpected consequences. The chapter

highlights the difficulties of implementing a performance based planning system.

Chapter 9 includes the concluding statements, revisits the hypotheses and research

questions, and provides recommendations for further research and for planning practice. The

chapter describes what aspects of Queensland’s planning system are believed to be

performance based.

Chapter 2: Performance Based Planning 9

Chapter 2 – Performance Based Planning

Performance based planning in its most “pure sense” is a method of planning that

relies on measurable performance standards to manage development and land use. This type

of planning is argued to balance certainty and flexibility where performance standards

provide certainty as to the benchmark to be achieved, and where the method of achievement

is flexible. Furthermore, performance based planning is argued to be less concerned with

what a development is called and more concerned with managing the impacts or effects of

that activity, where land use acceptability is determined by the performance standards.

There is considerable variation and confusion in the literature about performance

based planning, including the terminology used to describe this type of planning and the

methods of implementation utilised. This chapter therefore examines the theory and practice

of performance based planning by drawing together the wide range of interpretations and

methods of adoption from the literature review and the international experience of

performance based planning, and then developing a performance adoption spectrum to assess

the methods of implementation.

The chapter is divided into two parts. First, the chapter provides an overview of

performance based planning including various descriptions and pervasive themes

underpinning the concept, historical influences, origins and drivers, as well as the perceived

benefits and methods of implementation, with the latter focussing on land use management

techniques. This part of the chapter is developed into a definition of performance based

planning that has been used to guide this research. Second, the chapter explores the

performance based literature from North America, New Zealand and Australia, which is

divided into plan-based and non-plan based literature, and culminates with an explanation of

the gaps in existing literature. The two parts of this chapter have been used to guide the

analytical framework and research methods presented in Chapter 3.

2.1 Performance Based Planning Descriptions and Interpretations

The description of performance based planning approaches in the literature is

contextual and locality specific, which contributes to the difficulty in understating the

concept and also understanding its implementation in practice. Furthermore, in practice,

performance based approaches are often an implicit part of plans, and often only reflected in

single dimensions of plan content. This does not promote an understanding of the concept.


In more recent times, performance based planning approaches have been more broadly

conceived as fundamental aspects of planning systems. These adoption subtleties, may in

part, explain the lack of cohesive terminology and understanding and in addition have

perhaps contributed to the limited amount of research dedicated to this type of planning.

Despite these challenges, common themes are evident. These themes include how certainty

and flexibility are expressed in decision-making and how land use is managed in

performance based planning approaches. A small number of key performance based

descriptions/ interpretations are presented below.

Lane Kendig is regarded as one of the pioneers of performance based approaches and

uses the term ‘Performance Zoning’ to describe his model of performance based planning

(see Kendig 1980, 1982). Kendig (1982, 18) describes Performance Zoning as a model

which:

....employs districts to separate areas with broadly different functions and character rather than relying

on the districts to isolate different uses. The idea is to permit the landowner a number of ways to

develop his property. Instead of attempting to restrict the use of the land to protect the environment and

neighbours, carrying capacities and buffer zone standards are used. The standards are based on

performance, not land use....

Central to Kendig’s interpretation are a number of themes. These themes highlight

that: (1) detailed land use zones are less critical in this type of planning; (2) performance

standards provide operational proxies of land use acceptability and suitability; (3) the

performance standards provide certainty as to the acceptable limits of the development; and

(4) developer/ landowners have development flexibility within the bounds set by the

performance standards. In this example, it is noted that while Kendig’s interpretation does

not abandon spatial management units entirely, he alternatively promotes broad spatial

districts of certain function and character, rather than fine grained prescriptive zones. In this

interpretation, prescriptive spatial management and land use type specification is of less

concern. In supporting this position, Juster (1997, 64) argues that “the fundamental concept

underlying Performance Zoning is that within broad limits varying urban uses can coexist

with one another. The key to compatibility is the intensity with which, rather than purposes

for which, land is used”.

Porter et al. (1988) used the term ‘Flexible Zoning’ to describe a variety of flexible

planning regulations including Performance Zoning, Impact Zoning and Points Systems.

Porter et al. (1988, 7) argue that “in the ideal version of this type of zoning, any use is

allowable in any location, subject to performance standards that guard against harmful

effects spilling over on other uses”. Porter et al. also make the critical distinction between

flexible systems and flexible measures and concede that the division between flexible

systems and flexible measures is not always obvious. However, despite this distinction,

Porter et al. indicate that flexible zoning systems have three common characteristics, where


flexible zoning: (1) is the primary community wide approach to planning; (2) employs to

some extent performance based criteria/ standards to determine the appropriateness of uses;

and (3) is administratively supported to provide more predictable and consistent decisions.

This interpretation highlights an ideal perspective of the approach which relies on: (1)

performance criteria/ standards focussed on managing effects; (2) is less concerned with

prescriptive spatial management and specification of land use type; and (3) desires to

increase administrative certainty.

New Zealand has adopted the term ‘effects based planning’ to describe its

performance based planning approach. In New Zealand, the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA) was intended to provide a flexible framework where “the limits of environmental

effects of activities would be defined, but the activities themselves would be unspecified,

giving an opportunity for market innovation and technological change to define them”

(Ericksen et al. 2004, 12). The intent of the effects based regime was to gain maximum

environmental benefit with minimum regulation (Ericksen et al. 2004). A similar observation

was made by Spiller (2003, 100) in relation to the RMA, who stated, “under the effects based

model there is no presumption of land use incompatibility or adverse impacts on the

environment. Each application for development (resource consent) is assessed on its merits”.

This interpretation focuses of the effects of development, rather than necessarily the land use

itself. In this respect certainty is provided by the ‘defined’ limits of the effects and flexibility

is provided within the bounds of those specified effects.

The term ‘performance based planning’ has been used in Queensland, Australia to

describe its performance based approach. Yearbury (1998, 198) indicated that, “the IPA

makes specific reference to managing the effects of development on the environment. This is

designed to encourage (but not prescribe) a shift away from regulating land use by

nomenclature to one which assesses impact against the desired outcome”. Yearbury (1998,

198-199) goes on to say “what something is called will not, in the future, be an adequate

basis to distinguish whether it is acceptable or not. But I hasten to add the IPA does not

prevent planning schemes regulating development by what it is called rather than how it

performs. But it does allow for, and anticipates, an evolution towards performance based

planning”. This interpretation refers to managing effects and achieving outcomes and is

again less concerned with directly managing land use by use type. However, the description

openly recognises that both prescriptive land use regulation and performance based

approaches may be appropriate within the same system. In comparison, England (2004) uses

the umbrella term ‘outcome oriented planning’ to encompass ‘strategic planning’ and

‘performance based planning’ (including DEOs and performance measures) in her

description of the Queensland planning system. England (2006b, 83) supports this opinion


by arguing “outcome focussed planning implies development decision-making will be

guided by the need to achieve certain outcomes whilst allowing maximum flexibility about

the means to achieve those outcomes”, and that, “decision-makers must be guided by the

outcomes sought rather than the nomenclature or type of development proposed per se”.

These interpretations, while being slightly different, are focussed to signal a clear shift from

the arbitrary management of land use on the basis of the activity type. England also

distinguished between broader spatial policy considerations and performance based

planning.

Baker et al. (2006) in a comprehensive overview of performance based approaches in

the United States, Australia and New Zealand used the term ‘performance based planning’ to

describe strategic and operational levels (multi-spatial) to attain desired outcomes. Baker et

al. describe performance based planning as a type of planning that is more concerned with

the operational management of land uses, based on physical characteristics and function,

rather than the use type itself. This interpretation also draws attention to decision-making

certainty that relies on quantitative performance standards, but also makes reference to

achieving outcomes. Baker et al. (2006, 396) state:

performance-based regulation is built upon the assumption that the impacts of land use are a function of

intensity, or the physical characteristics and functions, rather than specific land uses themselves (such

as commercial or residential). A potential development is assessed against predetermined standards

(performance measurement) that set quantitative limits on acceptable levels of use. Thus, performance-

based approaches are composed of two components: first, criteria that describe the desired end result,

and second, methods to define standards used to measure the acceptable limits of impact to ensure the

desired end result (such as noise impacts).

A variety of less well explained interpretations of this type of performance based

approaches exist and are offered for comparison purposes. For

Documents

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE BASED ...eprints.qut.edu.au/49798/1/Travis_Frew_Thesis.pdfperformance based planning evolved in Queensland which was dependent on prescriptive land