SEQ Regional Plan – jargon, omissions and bias
There is a need for a return to regional plans that are understood by the community, have a realistic chance of being implemented and hopefully that the community will hold in high regard.
Is there bias of the regulatory provisions?
The focus of the Shaping SEQ seems to be locked in on facilitating urban development through the next fifty years. Despite lip service to other uses the plan does little to ensure that the other uses will be sustained in the face of pressure for urban activity. For example the draft plan notes that “there are a number of areas that have been in the Urban Footprint for some time but have not yet been developed. One way that we could help get things moving is to investigate these areas further, and provide some rules in the state planning regulatory provisions that will allow these areas to be developed sooner“.
The heavily loaded question is then followed with a simplistic “what do you think?”
Make this article your submission
The SPRP is a legal minefield, especially for non planners but clearly the community can ask that the provisions be improved and made legible. The SPRP usually escapes scrutiny from the community although it is carefully scrutinised (rightly) by the stakeholders reliant of legal provisions especially the land development industry.
If you have additional comments or disagree with the suggestion outlined, it is suggested your own comments be added. But let the Government know that there are problems with the SPRP and how these critical provisions are introduced through the Regional Plan.
To raise the level of community concern about the implementation of ShapingSEQ it is suggested this article be sent either:
Many thanks to the community REDLANDS2030 for their informative articles on the draft SEQRP especially this one used and linked here. http://redlands2030.net/seq-plan-jargon-omissions-bias/