Health and Social Impact Assessment of the South East Queensland Regional Plan NSW HIA Colloquium Sydney, 9 December 2

1. Health and Social Impact Assessment of the South East Queensland Regional PlanNSW HIA ColloquiumSydney, 9 December 2006 I would like to thank the organisers for the opportunity to provide an overview of the Health and Social Impact Assessment of the SEQ Regional plan undertaken between October 2004 and June 2005. My presentation today draws on work undertaken primarily by Andrea Young, Planning Consultant, and Shannon McKiernan, previously employed by QH, now working with Coakes Consulting. I would like to thank the organisers for the opportunity to provide an overview of the Health and Social Impact Assessment of the SEQ Regional plan undertaken between October 2004 and June 2005. My presentation today draws on work undertaken primarily by Andrea Young, Planning Consultant, and Shannon McKiernan, previously employed by QH, now working with Coakes Consulting.

2. Collaborators Consultant Queensland Health – Public Health Services and Statewide Health Services Planning Office of Urban Management Department of Communities Local Government Community/Social Planners Andrea Young Kate Copeland Shannon McKiernan Sophie Dwyer Shannon Rutherford Lisa Pollard Jacinta Sartori Nusch Herman Wil Brown Catherine Boorman John Brown As with many such projects, this work has been supported by several groups and I would like to acknowledge the funding received from QH’s Public Health Services (Environmental Health Unit) Office of Urban Management Department of Communities In addition, I would like to acknowledge the assistance received from Local Government Community and Social Planners – ably represented on our Steering Committee by John Brown. Our Steering Committee included representatives from each of the stakeholder groups, who met regularly each month from November 2004 to September 2005 to guide and manage the project. I would also note that the outcome of this work has depended on the generous contributions of a diversity of individuals from State Government agencies, local government agencies and academia who have participated in various workshops held to inform and test the development of the Health & Social Impact Assessment. My thanks, and those of the project team, to all participants.As with many such projects, this work has been supported by several groups and I would like to acknowledge the funding received from QH’s Public Health Services (Environmental Health Unit) Office of Urban Management Department of Communities In addition, I would like to acknowledge the assistance received from Local Government Community and Social Planners – ably represented on our Steering Committee by John Brown. Our Steering Committee included representatives from each of the stakeholder groups, who met regularly each month from November 2004 to September 2005 to guide and manage the project. I would also note that the outcome of this work has depended on the generous contributions of a diversity of individuals from State Government agencies, local government agencies and academia who have participated in various workshops held to inform and test the development of the Health & Social Impact Assessment. My thanks, and those of the project team, to all participants.

3. Quick introduction to SEQ Regional Plan Underpinned by previous work including SEQ 2001 David Logan, QH Public Health Services was an active participant in earlier planning processes draft SEQ Regional Plan was released in October 2004 for a four month public consultation period (to end February 2005) final report SEQ Regional Plan was released on 30 June 2005 Provides a framework for managing growth, change, land use and development ot 2026 Statutory plan, with supporting Regulatory Provisions To be reviewed every 5 years Quick introduction to SEQ Regional Plan Underpinned by previous work including SEQ 2001 David Logan, QH Public Health Services was an active participant in earlier planning processes draft SEQ Regional Plan was released in October 2004 for a four month public consultation period (to end February 2005) final report SEQ Regional Plan was released on 30 June 2005 Provides a framework for managing growth, change, land use and development ot 2026 Statutory plan, with supporting Regulatory Provisions To be reviewed every 5 years

4. For those of you not familiar with SEQ, it encompasses the area from Noosa to the north, Toowoomba to the west, and the Gold Coast and NSW border to the south. It includes 18 local government areas. Covers approximately 5% of Queensland’s geographic base, with approximately 62% of our population For those of you not familiar with SEQ, it encompasses the area from Noosa to the north, Toowoomba to the west, and the Gold Coast and NSW border to the south. It includes 18 local government areas. Covers approximately 5% of Queensland’s geographic base, with approximately 62% of our population

9. In April 2004, Qld Govt established the Office of Urban Management to lead and coordinate the development of an SEQ Regional Plan for the next 20 years. The draft SEQ Regional Plan was released in October 2004, and was available for public consultation until February 2005. In my role with QH, I had the opportunity to work with colleagues from Public Health Services who were using Health Impact Assessment as a tool. After discussions with a colleague with a social planning background, agreement was reached that combining Health Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment could provide benefit in considering the regional planning process. Support was sought and gained from Office of Urban Management, QH Public Health Services, Dept of Communities, and SEQROC Community Planning group. A Steering Committee was established with representatives from each agency which met regularly throughout the project. Role and intent of SEQ Regional Plan needed to be understood Key elements – urban footprint, contain rural residential, western corridor, TODs, Activity Centres Phased approach – due to timelines (initial – Rapid Impact Assessment, then – Comprehensive Impact Assessment) In April 2004, Qld Govt established the Office of Urban Management to lead and coordinate the development of an SEQ Regional Plan for the next 20 years. The draft SEQ Regional Plan was released in October 2004, and was available for public consultation until February 2005. In my role with QH, I had the opportunity to work with colleagues from Public Health Services who were using Health Impact Assessment as a tool. After discussions with a colleague with a social planning background, agreement was reached that combining Health Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment could provide benefit in considering the regional planning process. Support was sought and gained from Office of Urban Management, QH Public Health Services, Dept of Communities, and SEQROC Community Planning group. A Steering Committee was established with representatives from each agency which met regularly throughout the project. Role and intent of SEQ Regional Plan needed to be understood Key elements – urban footprint, contain rural residential, western corridor, TODs, Activity Centres Phased approach – due to timelines (initial – Rapid Impact Assessment, then – Comprehensive Impact Assessment)

10. OUM – focus on land use considerations, need ongoing involvement from social planners and human service planners/providers Need to recognise different professional perspectives – challenging assumptions Benefits of facilitated workshop approach Usefulness of summary of known relationships – selective literature review Recognition of contributions of multiple agencies and individuals (academia, local govt, state agencies etc) Not developed in isolation – builds on a decade or prior work in both fields Success factors – Motivation, Positive approach, Non-threatening, Didn’t require budget challenges for individuals or agencies Developed more broadly based understanding of links between people’s health and wellbeing, and community wellbeing Opportunities for improvement – consultation with community OUM – focus on land use considerations, need ongoing involvement from social planners and human service planners/providers Need to recognise different professional perspectives – challenging assumptions Benefits of facilitated workshop approach Usefulness of summary of known relationships – selective literature review Recognition of contributions of multiple agencies and individuals (academia, local govt, state agencies etc) Not developed in isolation – builds on a decade or prior work in both fields Success factors – Motivation, Positive approach, Non-threatening, Didn’t require budget challenges for individuals or agencies Developed more broadly based understanding of links between people’s health and wellbeing, and community wellbeing Opportunities for improvement – consultation with community

11. HIA & SIA METHODOLOGIES COMPARED

12. Determinants of health

13. Challenges and limitations Broad nature of policy and resulting analysis Reliance on existing research Data availability and gaps No community input Limited exploration of particular groups

14. Documented known relationships between health, wellbeing and environmental conditions Reviewed changes proposed in Regional Plan Reviewed existing social and health conditions in SEQ against relevant determinants Analysed likely impacts Developed tools and responses

15. What determinants did we investigate in the region? Population characteristics and groups Social and economic characteristics Lifestyle & behaviours Access to services Natural & built environment

16. What were the main impacts identified? Income, accessibility, housing, social connectedness and physical activity are critical Much depends on how it is implemented Impacts identified included: Some improved accessibility through reduced overall urban sprawl Continued patterns of social polarisation in response to declining affordable housing Potential for an east/west wealth divide – if housing affordability and sustainable diversified employment is no achieved in coastal urban areas. Potential for inadequate social infrastructure provision for new communities at the outset of development Risk of investment in new social infrastructure diverting investment from communities with existing needs Potential for loss of affordable housing, and affordable community and business premises in TOD locations Improved physical activity through integrating land use and transport in TODs Potential for rapid change to erode existing social connectedness/sense of community in rapidly growing areas eg Ipswich and TODs Risk of heightened social disadvantage in the Western Corridor, if jobs growth does not match population growth Continued dependence on Brisbane for services and jobs, with CBD focus of transport connections Potential for social fragmentation through patchwork of unconnected and potentially exclusive master planned communities Potential erosion of health and wellbeing associated with development of major transport infrastructureImpacts identified included: Some improved accessibility through reduced overall urban sprawl Continued patterns of social polarisation in response to declining affordable housing Potential for an east/west wealth divide – if housing affordability and sustainable diversified employment is no achieved in coastal urban areas. Potential for inadequate social infrastructure provision for new communities at the outset of development Risk of investment in new social infrastructure diverting investment from communities with existing needs Potential for loss of affordable housing, and affordable community and business premises in TOD locations Improved physical activity through integrating land use and transport in TODs Potential for rapid change to erode existing social connectedness/sense of community in rapidly growing areas eg Ipswich and TODs Risk of heightened social disadvantage in the Western Corridor, if jobs growth does not match population growth Continued dependence on Brisbane for services and jobs, with CBD focus of transport connections Potential for social fragmentation through patchwork of unconnected and potentially exclusive master planned communities Potential erosion of health and wellbeing associated with development of major transport infrastructure

17. Conclusions…directions… More consistent reporting of social and health data to support planning Greater capacity to integrate health and social considerations Improved leverage for social infrastructure funding & co-ordination Greater capacity for multi-disciplinary planning Greater capacity to integrate statutory and other planning processes Inter-agency collaboration Monitoring and research Planning guidelines & tools Inter-agency collaboration Monitoring and research Planning guidelines & tools

18. Priorities for inter-agency collaboration: Social infrastructure benchmarking, co-ordination and funding Capacity building Regional affordable housing & ageing strategies Matching jobs & population growth Specific projects (e.g. Ripley Valley, TOD Taskforce) Monitoring and reporting

19. Monitoring and research: Regional Health and Social Conditions Monitoring Project Consistent indicators Consistent geographic areas Integrate existing data Feed into SEQ State of the Environment report Research Impacts of total water cycle management systems Health status of urban Indigenous people Impacts of medium/high density housing & neighbourhood design Impacts of ageing in insecure housing

20. What are the tools and how can we use them? Raise the profile of health and wellbeing Develop a shared understanding of health and wellbeing Support improved planning and development decisions Support health and social planners in providing advice and making comment on planning processes and outcomes

21. TOOL: Summary Of Known Relationships Document Health, wellbeing and the urban environment – a summary of known relationships (a selected literature review) Identifies determinants to guide impact assessment Establishes referenced, evidence-based case for role of health and social factors in urban planning Health, wellbeing and the urban environment – a summary of known relationships (a selected literature review) Identifies determinants to guide impact assessment Establishes referenced, evidence-based case for role of health and social factors in urban planning

22. TOOL: Existing Conditions in SEQ(Baseline report) Existing health and social conditions in SEQ Reports against selected determinants for the Region Provides basis to understand & represent urban trends/conditions impacting on health and wellbeing Draws on Social Atlas of SEQ (produced by Dept Local Govt and Planning, and other agency data) Existing health and social conditions in SEQ Reports against selected determinants for the Region Provides basis to understand & represent urban trends/conditions impacting on health and wellbeing Draws on Social Atlas of SEQ (produced by Dept Local Govt and Planning, and other agency data)

23. TOOL. SEQ Regional Plan - Impact Analysis Detailed assessment of Regional Plan’s proposals, rationale and evidence to support analysis Useful as resource for advice to Local Growth Management Strategies, Planning Schemes and impact assessment

24. TOOL: Guidance for planning instruments Provides information for preparing/responding to: Local Growth Management Strategies TOD Guidelines Greenfield Structure Plans Activity Centre Master Plan State Government Action Plan

25. TOOL: Guidance for Impact Assessment Guidance on assessing health and social impacts from the development of infrastructure proposals eg transport infrastructure How can we best take advantage of the current window of opportunity for health & social planning in SEQ? Could we benefit from a regional approach to social infrastructure benchmarking? How can we best share our skills and experience in implementing the Regional Plan? How can we best take advantage of the current window of opportunity for health & social planning in SEQ? Could we benefit from a regional approach to social infrastructure benchmarking? How can we best share our skills and experience in implementing the Regional Plan?

27. Thank you