Confusion between centrality and remoteness in cross-border regional planning: An Australian case study
Date of this Version
Cross-border regional planning raises particular planning issues due to the different planning philosophies and mechanisms used in neighbouring state jurisdictions. This paper explores cross-border regional planning issues emerging in two rapidly urbanising adjacent regions on Australia‟s east coast: South East Queensland (SEQ) and Far North Coast New South Wales (FNC NSW). Using literature review and documentary research, the paper examines contemporary regional planning for these two regions in several contexts, including the rise of regional planning in Australia; conceptions of „central‟ and „remote‟ regions; and international comparison. The paper investigates the limited progress towards coordinated cross-border regional planning in an historical context in which a formerly rural border has become an urban border within one of Australia‟s fastest growing emerging “global city regions” (Simmonds and Hack 2000; Scott 2002). Current regional planning approaches differ markedly, with the SEQ Regional Plan defining a regional network of „TODs‟ (Queensland Government 2009) and the FNC Regional Strategy planning for “a region of villages” (NSW Government 2007). Comparisons are made with regional planning in other city regions where suburban expansion spills across state borders, in Australia and in Portland, Oregon and Clark County, Washington (USA) and the international borders between San Diego and Tijuana. It is concluded that the different conceptions of centrality and remoteness of the two Australian regions play a major role in the different regional planning approaches exhibited on the two sides of the state border.
This document is currently not available here.
This document has been peer reviewed.