Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
or that the policy was so general as to be ineffectual, largely because they lacked
the resources and capacity to undertake the task with so little guidance. The
VBRC recommended that a model local planning policy be developed that could
provide a basis for authorities with limited capacity to prepare their own instru-
ments from scratch (BVRC, 2011). Similar problems have been encountered in
relation to planning for coastal hazards in Victoria, with local government strug-
gling to implement framework objectives in the absence of detailed guidance and
direction (Macintosh, 2012). Despite the seemingly strong preference of local
governments for strong state guidance on adaptation requirements, 2012 has seen
the beginnings of a 'retreat from adaptation' as the state level in some states under
new conservative governments, particularly in relation to coastal planning.
Governance arrangements are also problematic and demand further attention
from researchers and policy makers. The statutory constraints on local government
powers limit their capacity to implement adaptation measures single-handedly,
hence the focus in this paper on state planning initiatives. The cost of
some adaptations options will also mean a role for the Federal Government.
Negotiation of roles and responsibilities across three tiers of government will
complicate and slow progress on adaptation, but is critical for achieving effective
governance arrangements in the long term.
Regardless of resourcing or statutory mandate, the quality and implementation
of adaptation planning ultimately depends on the institutional culture (Measham
et al., 2011) and commitment of the administering agency. Adaptation tends to
be sidelined where a local authority conceptualizes adaptation as an 'environ-
mental issue' rather than an issue concerning the whole of a local government's
activities (Measham et al., 2011).
Fear of litigation and legal liability also appears to be a significant barrier to
adaptation in an urban planning context. Local authorities face the invidious
choice of exposing themselves to future claims in respect developments they
approve in vulnerable locations, or risking appeals against the refusal of a
development in a high-risk area. Legal challenges can be expected whenever
commercial interests are affected by new requirements; any ambiguity or
inadequacy in drafting or the exercise of discretion will be tested. The operation
of legislative frameworks for coastal climate impacts has already been tested in
four Australian states, with the results of litigation varying considerably based
on the terms of the planning law and associated instruments and the tribunal
considering the matter. Attempts to impose conditions on approval that serve
to shorten planning horizons are also likely to face challenge if the statutory
foundation for imposing them is in unclear in any way. For example, the
now-repealed NSW Sea Level Rise Planning Guideline permitted authorities
to grant planning approvals that ended or were reviewed either at a specified
future date or on the occurrence of a specified event trigger (such as the inward
migration of an erosion line) (State of NSW, 2010a). To date, there has been
limited uptake of this more flexible approach to handling future uncertainty
because of its political unpalatability and concerns about impacts on developers'
ability to obtain finance for projects conditioned in this way.
