Australian cities and towns could achieve greater sustainable development and circular economy outcomes if better urban planning was undertaken on a neighbourhood scale, according to a new study.
With building code legislation focused on individual lots and a lack of strategic planning at a state government level, new developments may miss opportunities to create more sustainable environments, the study by researchers at the University of South Australia and RMIT for the housing policy network AHURI found.
“There are currently weak mechanisms for realising sustainable neighbourhoods in Australia, with a dominant focus of planning and development processes on individual building sites that imply limited scope to consider wider effects of the development. Sustainability is given insufficient attention in urban development processes due to weak statutory underpinnings and an often merely selective focus on specific aspects,” the report noted.
Stefanie Dühr, professor at University of South Australia and the lead researcher on the study, pointed to a lack of coordination between levels of government and across states on planning and implementation of sustainable housing policies.
“The National Construction Code only looks at building performance so is narrowly focused. Part of the problem is that everything boils down to what’s happening on a lot level,” she said.
The qualitative study involved a survey of 123 industry participants from professions spanning planners, architects, policymakers, builders, developers, regulators and engineers.
Respondents said they would like to incorporate circular economy principles in housing developments but found it difficult to achieve change due to a lack of influence and a co-ordinated approach to planning and development.
Some pointed to missed opportunities in achieving sustainable development outcomes on a neighbourhood scale because planning and design decisions were most frequently made at a building, rather than a neighbourhood level.
Dühr (pictured right) said this was particularly the case with infill developments, which lacked a strategic planning approach and a discussion of what infrastructure and services the new precinct might require. “[Developers] need to work as a community – they need to work on better ways to make land consolidation easier.”

Setting up district-level renewable energy networks in an infill development is a commonly missed opportunity, according to one of the survey respondents who is a New South Wales-based architect.
“Solar is typically applied, but rarely at enough scale, very rarely is battery storage used. We encourage Power Purchase Agreements. Energy efficient appliances are encouraged but uptake lacks informed decision making and relies on habit and what are minimum requirements.”
“Neighbourhood schemes are too hard to implement and not supported by the energy industry,” one urban planner noted.
Empower local councils – and give them land
The research analysed 15 case studies of best practice sustainable development at the neighbourhood level from Australia and overseas.
It was noted that while Australia has produced many successful eco-villages, including Nightingale in Brunswick, Melbourne and the Cape Patterson eco-village in regional Victoria, the country could learn a lot from European examples.
In Amsterdam, the Buiksloterham district is being redeveloped from an old industrial port. The City of Amsterdam, which owns the land, has set out ambitious circular economy targets which include a 50 per cent reduction in primary raw material use by 2030 and a fully circular city by 2050.
The development, which is expected to complete by 2030, must also achieve a 95 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. A strategy document written for the site contained sustainability objectives for a range of areas besides energy and water including waste and material flows, ecosystems and natural capital, infrastructure and mobility, and diversity and liveability.
In the Netherlands, it is common for local municipalities to buy land and act as developers, Dühr told The Fifth Estate.
This enables councils such as the City of Amsterdam to have greater input into planning processes at the neighbourhood level, which can ensure that better sustainable outcomes are achieved.
“The Dutch are very good at master planning and the local council has constitutionally defined powers to undertake planning. This gives the local authority more autonomy. Dutch municipalities are effectively land developers themselves.”
Dühr said more strategic planning for sustainability and circular economy should be undertaken at a state level in Australia, and the “wins” from sustainable development needed to be shared between local and state governments to ensure best practice could be replicated across the country.
She said the study was a starting point and that more research was needed to understand “the nitty gritty relationships between councils and communities. We need to do more research on infill developments and what we are doing to resolve land supply issues.”

Sustainability is a relative term because it is a spectrum, from strong sustainability to weak sustainability – this is a well-accepted concept in Ecological Economics. It depends on how substitutable you believe man-made capital is for natural capital. More in this article:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/6569122-Pelenc-Weak%20Sustainability%20versus%20Strong%20Sustainability.pdf
this article lost me in the first sentence when it said “Australian cities and towns could achieve greater sustainable development …”
First, ‘sustainable’ is an absolute term not relative. An activity is sustainable or it is not. Second, development is not sustainable unless it has zero negative impact. No development in any city or town anywhere at any time has not had a negative impact if, by development you mean GROWTH (& i think you do).
The case you are actually presenting to your readers is this: it is possible to cause less harm in the future development of our towns & cities than we have in the past. BUT, so long as we grow our cities & their populations, we will continue our draw-down on our natural environment – one way or another.
In short, Growth is not sustainable.
thing is sustainability is not about population but about consumption, which is why we object to the small population/shut our borders argument to solve our sustainabiltiy problems