Sustainability Frameworks
Earlier this year, the Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government, and Planning released an updated 'Sustainability Framework for Queensland Local Governments' (https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/77496/local-government-sustainability-framework.pdf). This framework provides a comprehensive perspective on the factors influencing council sustainability and outlines the Department's collaborative approach with councils, agencies, and sector stakeholders to address these issues.
One key aspect highlighted in the framework is the significant role of infrastructure planning and infrastructure charging in the growth and prosperity of Queensland's local governments. The Department emphasises the criticality of Infrastructure Charges reporting for both short-term and long-term sustainability of Councils.
While it is encouraging to see infrastructure planning and charging acknowledged in this manner, the framework, along with the accompanying financial management guideline (https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0036/77499/financial-management-sustainability-guideline-2022.pdf), offers limited guidance on specific measures and indicators to assess the performance of local governments in this area.
Currently in Queensland, a local government's infrastructure plan is detailed in its Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP). The LGIP identifies the necessary trunk infrastructure to support anticipated future growth in a local government area. Without an LGIP in place, local governments are unable to levy infrastructure charges.
领英推荐
In terms of reporting, local governments are obligated to periodically publish registers outlining charges imposed on development approvals, charges collected upon completion of development, infrastructure delivered by developers, and infrastructure provided by the local government. While these registers aim to provide transparency and visibility to these important functions, they lack the necessary analysis to offer meaningful insights into the sustainability of a local government's infrastructure planning and delivery function.
The framework and accompanying guideline do not address the benchmarks and metrics that local governments could use to determine the effectiveness of their infrastructure charging and planning functions. The ultimate measure of this would be a local government delivering on their development targets while meeting the financial sustainability measures identified in the financial management guideline.
The challenge with relying solely on this measure is that by the time a problem reveals itself, the issues are often deeply rooted and will take multiple years to resolve. Ideally, we should establish a set of metrics or indicators that serve as early warnings to identify when a local government's infrastructure planning and delivery function is not working effectively. Capturing this information would allow Local Government Executives and Elected Members to take necessary action not to impede community growth, infrastructure delivery or sustainability.
The obvious questions that arise are what the best metrics are to use to capture this information? Who takes the responsibility for the data capture? and how can it be presented in a meaningful way? We are hoping that the infrastructure contributions community can provide some example metrics and data presentations that answer the above questions and can be openly shared as best practice. Over to you…..
Principal at PIE
1 年Defining a useable metric is difficult because LGs are not the decision makers when it comes to much of what happens in the development process. Whilst they make an important contribution through the preparation of planning schemes and infrastructure plans, by delivering strategic (headworks) infrastructure and by administering infrastructure charges, offsets and refunds, the decisions about where, when and how to develop are largely made by the development industry. These decisions are informed by a host of detailed considerations known only to those undertaking development. LGs cannot be held accountable for outcomes that are outside of their control - only those matters that are under their control. Hence the difficulty of establishing metrics in the shared space which is urban development. As stated previously, one of the key matters which LGs do control is the planning and delivery of strategic infrastructure. LGs should be held accountable for identifying the need for this essential infrastructure, budgeting for its provision and ultimately delivering it.
Principal, Kerry Doss Consulting - experienced manager and leader. Over 35 years of experience in town planning and infrastructure planning - regional planning, cities, urban, rural and natural areas.
1 年Good article. There are considerable challenges for local government and industry in getting infrastructure funded and delivered. The equitable funding/coordination/delivery/rollout of infrastructure is a critical issue that must be addressed as part of the ShapingSEQ (SEQ Regional Plan) review if there is going to be any chance of speeding up/improving the housing supply chain. Improvements made can then flow through to the rest of the state. A key piece of information that will assist in improving the supply chain is the measurement of and reporting on the delivery of infrastructure through Local Government Infrastructure Plans - LGIP - or the equivalent in other jurisdictions. The reporting of this information gives a clear idea of cost escalation between planning and delivery, gaps between charges generated and actual costs and whether infrastructure delivery is keeping pace with growth - all good things to know! Finally also spare a thought for the asset managers. These asset bases are commonly valued in the billions of dollars, even for medium sized local governments. Each year considerable funds need to be directed at their maintenance and renewal. This is also a considerable aspect of financial sustainability.