Where and How Should We Grow? / Short and Long Term Impacts of Settlement Patterns FINAL REPORT 2.2.2 Ongoing Maintenance and Operation State policy highlights the need to reduce capital outlays through settlement planning. However, there is less emphasis on the maintenance and operational costs local government face in the medium and longer term as a result of residential development. In their report National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government, PWC (2006) identified that councils may give priority to investment in new infrastructure without considering the level of funding required to sufficiently renew infrastructure as it ages. The Local Government National Report 2007-8, produced by the Productivity Commission, highlighted that the initial construction cost of infrastructure accounts for approximately 20% of an asset’s lifetime costs, with operating and renewal expenses comprising the bulk. PWC (2006) also identified that 87% of rural councils rely on some level of grants to meet current expenditure levels. 2.3 Settlement Patterns As identified in the project brief, settlement patterns can typically take one of four forms: 1. Consolidated - where infill opportunities are recognised and maximised; 2. Dispersed – where development is vaguely centralised, but significant development in non- serviced areas exists; 3. Ribbon development - where development extends along coastal frontages or transport links; 4. Greenfield – new development in areas with little existing infrastructure. Development tends to be predominantly suburban and reliant on existing town centres and/or activity centres for jobs and services Source: Project Brief, p.2 The research attempts to tie the findings to the settlement patterns, and also examine whether ‘market-led’ or ‘policy-led’ development has different fiscal impacts for local government. 20110382
Where and How Should We Grow? / Short and Long Term Impacts of Settlement Patterns FINAL REPORT 2.2.2 Ongoing Maintenance and Operation State policy highlights the need to reduce capital outlays through settlement planning. However, there is less emphasis on the maintenance and operational costs local government face in the medium and longer term as a result of residential development. In their report National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government, PWC (2006) identified that councils may give priority to investment in new infrastructure without considering the level of funding required to sufficiently renew infrastructure as it ages. The Local Government National Report 2007-8, produced by the Productivity Commission, highlighted that the initial construction cost of infrastructure accounts for approximately 20% of an asset’s lifetime costs, with operating and renewal expenses comprising the bulk. PWC (2006) also identified that 87% of rural councils rely on some level of grants to meet current expenditure levels. 2.3 Settlement Patterns As identified in the project brief, settlement patterns can typically take one of four forms: 1. Consolidated - where infill opportunities are recognised and maximised; 2. Dispersed – where development is vaguely centralised, but significant development in non- serviced areas exists; 3. Ribbon development - where development extends along coastal frontages or transport links; 4. Greenfield – new development in areas with little existing infrastructure. Development tends to be predominantly suburban and reliant on existing town centres and/or activity centres for jobs and services Source: Project Brief, p.2 The research attempts to tie the findings to the settlement patterns, and also examine whether ‘market-led’ or ‘policy-led’ development has different fiscal impacts for local government. 20110382
Where-and-how-should-we-grow-final-report-Jan-2012.docx