The Australian Planning System

The planning system of Australia is a patchwork of semi-independent frameworks each designed to operate at different levels of jurisdiction. These systems are very much dominated along state lines and each state provides its own department designed to deal with the states local issues. Such and organisation is very much a holdover from the colonial period of Australia when each colony operated completely autonomously and as is reflected even today through the difficulties faced when trying to plan on a national scale.

The claim could easily be made that Australia’s only truly national planning organisation is the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), an industry body that is largely independent and self-regulating (PIA, 2012). Traditionally the federal government has regulated planning primarily through environmental legislation and a national heritage framework. Only recently has this began to change with the creation of a National Urban Policy released in 2011 (DIRD, 2011). In the absence of a strong national authority most planning has been pioneered at the local and state level in Australia. Each Australian State has a planning authority and cascading down from this are the local councils, shire and regional authorities often with overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to this are planning designations designed around projects or limited objectives such as the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area which provide further complications (NSWP&I, 2013).

The complicated and multi-level nature of Australian planning has often led to a lack of national direction in the past. Only in the past few years has this begun to change as the federal government attempts to take more control of planning issues. While this approach has provided the scope for unique solutions throughout the country to develop it has also hindered the development of a unified planning framework for the future. As this authority becomes more centralised we can expect to find a more structured, efficient system better able to cope with emerging challenges, but perhaps at the expense of innovation and adaptation in Australian planning.

References

Planning Institute of Australia, 2012, About Us, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.planning.org.au/aboutpia

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, 2011, National Urban Policy, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/urbanpolicy/

New South Wales Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2013, Broader Western Sydney Employment Area, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-us/planningyourregion/broaderwesternsydneyemploymentarea-wsea.aspx

The Eixample of Ildefons Cerda

When discussing the great planners of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the same names and movements always make their appearances. Haussmann, Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier etc. But it is another planner that I feel is one of the most underappreciated; Ildefons Cerda. Cerda was a Catalonian civil engineer who wrote a number of works on planning theory in the mid-19^th century much of which was done in support of his magnum opus, the design of Barcelona’s Eixample the expansion to the medieval city designed to not just bring it into line with modern urban centres but to propel it forward as the beacon of urban planning throughout Spain and greater Europe.

The Eixample Plan for Barcelona, 1859

The Eixample (literally “extension” in Catalan) was a grand project designed to improve the quality of life of Barcelona residents, a mixed use development which Cerda hoped would accommodate rich and poor alike in a healthy modern district (Pallares-Barbera et all, 2011). Cerda was very careful in his planning, he disliked the whims which had driven many earlier plans, and sought to maximise sunshine, access to services, parks, sanitation and transport. His was a forward thinking plan that incorporated the latest technologies in sewage management and transportation while retaining the community spirit of the old city. While many have criticised Eixample for being too regimented and conformist the design of Eixample largely achieved its goals of improving living conditions for its residents. The primary flaw was that the district never became the mixed wealth community Cerda had hoped for. Then as today it was largely occupied by the wealthier classes of Barcelona.

Ultimately Cerda’s achievements in planning the Eixample are his greatest strength and his biggest weakness. Barcelona is an excellent example of planning in action, Cerda nursed the design from beginning to end, and while not every feature of the plan was constructed, it still remains his vision for a planned city. However Cerda remains almost unknown in the world at large, his works were not widely disseminated and outside of the planning community and Barcelona itself you'd be hard pressed to find someone who recognises his name and that has limited the impact he might otherwise have had (Aibar and Bijker, 1997).

References

Ildefons Cerda i Sunyar, 1859, Enlargement map of Barcelona, Wikimedia Commons, Accessed 25th February 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ensanche_-_eixample_-_Barcelona.jpg

Pallares-Barbera, M., Duch J., and Badia A., 2011, Cerda and Barcelona: The need for a new city and service provision, Accessed 25^th February 2014, P. 5, file:///C:/Users/Daniel/Downloads/CEEOL%20Article.PDF

Aibar E., and Bijker W., 1997, Constructing a City: The Cerda Plan for the Extension of Barcelona, Accessed 25^th February 2014, http://sth.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.short