the bui ldi ng sustai nabi li ty i ndex and loc al ... · the bui ldi ng sustai nabi li ty i ndex...
TRANSCRIPT
THE BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT:ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS
THE BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES BACHELOR OF TOWN PLANNING THESIS
ERIN PAPPS NOVEMBER 2006
2
ABSTRACT
The Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) was introduced by the New South
Wales Government in 2004. The first of its kind in the world, BASIX is a web-
based, interactive tool which calculates the energy and water efficiency of a
dwelling’s design. Following the success of Sydney's ‘green’ Olympic Games
and in response to worldwide concern about environmental issues, BASIX was
developed by the NSW Government to standardise development controls for
energy and water efficiency across the state. The BASIX scheme requires all
new residential dwellings and major alterations and additions to meet energy
and water efficiency targets through dwelling design. Due to a lack of
research to date, the role of BASIX in the development assessment process is
not well understood. Is BASIX meeting expectations? The aim of this thesis is
to investigate the role, successes and failures of BASIX in the NSW
development application process and within the NSW planning framework. On
the basis of a critical review of the literature, in depth interviews and personal
workplace experience, the thesis concludes that BASIX requires changes to its
administrative processes, reconsideration of legislative controls, and greater
commitment and research from the NSW Government.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my family for your support and keeping me sane over the past
four months.
Thank you to my friends for providing advice and distractions, it was very
much appreciated and I hope I returned the favour.
Thank you especially to my friend who helped me with graphic design – it will
not be forgotten.
Thank you to the friends and random participants who volunteered for this
research, your help was invaluable.
Finally, thank you to Dr Danny Wiggins, my supervisor, for being so
enthusiastic and providing useful advice.
4
CONTENTS
Introduction 6
1. Background to BASIX 13
1.1. Sustainability as a planning issue 14
1.2. Early approaches to sustainability 19
1.3. History of BASIX 26
2. BASIX in practice 32
2.1. The mechanics of BASIX 33
2.2. The development application process 36
3. Problems with BASIX 39
3.1. Methodology and introduction 40
3.2. The concept 42
3.3. Impacts on the DA process 47
3.4. Problems with BASIX 55
4. Addressing the problem 56
4.1. Introduction 57
4.2. The policy cycle 58
4.3. Improving BASIX in the DA process 60
4.4. The concept and law 65
Conclusion 69
5
CONTENTS
List of figures
Figure 1: Overview of the development and
implementation of the BASIX scheme 30
Figure 2: Key Stages in the Development
Assessment Process 36
Glossary of common abbreviations
BASIX: the Building Sustainability Index
BPB: Building Professionals Board
DIPNR: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
DOP: Department of Planning
GBCA: Green Building Council Australia
LGA: Local government area
SMS: Sydney Metropolitan Plan
PIA: Planning Institute of Australia
6
INTRODUCTION
7
Aim
The NSW Government introduced BASIX, the Building Sustainability Index, in
2004 as a tool used to calculate the water and energy efficiency of a new
dwelling. It is web-based and interactive, and was the first of its kind in the
world. A BASIX Certificate, provided when a development meets the
minimum 40% water and 25% energy savings (compared to the average
home), is now required in the assessment of a development application for a
single dwelling. The tool has been expanded since 2004 and now includes all
new residential development, and from October 2006 also applies to
renovations or extensions to existing dwellings (BASIX 2006).
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the role, successes and failures of
BASIX in the NSW development application process and within the NSW
planning framework, and make recommendations for its future development
and use.
Objectives
More specifically, the objectives of this thesis are to:
Explain the context for the policy and legislative introduction of BASIX.
Explore the issues raised by the implementation of BASIX through the
development assessment process.
Provide recommendations for the future use of the BASIX tool within
the context of NSW public policy and progressing toward sustainability.
8
Structure
The structure of this thesis is as follows:
Introduction
1. Background to BASIX
1.1. Sustainability as a planning issue
1.2. Early approaches to sustainability
1.3. History of BASIX
2. BASIX in practice
2.1. The mechanics of BASIX
2.2. The development application process
3. Problems with BASIX
3.1. Methodology and introduction
3.2. The concept
3.3. Impacts on the DA process
3.4. Problems with BASIX
4. Addressing the problem
4.1. Introduction
4.2. The policy cycle
4.3. Improving BASIX in the DA process
4.4. The concept and law
Conclusion
Chapter One provides a background to the BASIX tool and policy, by
providing an overview of the global attitudes and studies in the area of
sustainability and development. It discusses the approaches to sustainability
within and outside Australia, and briefly discusses the use of rating tools.
From this background, the history of the Building Sustainability Index is given
further context and discussed to provide an understanding of its intended role
and function.
9
Chapter Two gives a more practical overview of how the BASIX tool and
certificates are used in NSW, and how they fit into the development
assessment process. The changes to legislation and processes are discussed
and this provides a platform for discussing some of the concerns which are
raised with the BASIX tool and the process.
Chapter Three identifies and discusses the problems of BASIX that have been
raised as a result of this research. These are divided into two types; those
which relate to problems in the development assessment/certification process,
and problems with the role and concept of the BASIX scheme.
Chapter Four looks to the future and begins to address some of the problems
raised in Chapter Three. It discusses the need for further research and
identifies some changes which could be considered to improve the process
and functions of BASIX.
Background
This thesis was developed after eighteen months experience of working in
development assessment with the BASIX tool.
The BASIX tool was introduced under legislation which amended the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW). It was
introduced for several reasons, including:
1. The need to respond to natural resource conservation; and
2. The perceived need for standardised requirements for “sustainable
development” and energy efficiency issues across local government
areas (Eckstein & Palese 2004).
Initial experiences of the author working with BASIX were mixed, with Council
staff and applicants originally following the same learning curve in regards to
10
the requirements. However, over time there was a struggle between the
parties due to a continuous turnover of applicants who were experiencing
difficulties in understanding the requirements.
BASIX was presented as a tool that would simplify the development
assessment process and would streamline approvals in local government.
This opinion has been expressed in NSW parliament (Knowles 2004; Knowles
2005), the media (Turk 2002; McLaren 2005) and in academic and
professional publishing (Newman 2005; Eckstein & Palese 2004). These
assertions have not always been supported by facts - based on poor statistical
figures which assert only the number of BASIX Certificates created; this
differs significantly from the number which have been submitted or utilised as
a part of an approval, and includes Certificates for the same property which
may be a result of amended plans (Knowles 2004).
There has been no definitive research into the BASIX tool and its impact on
the development assessment process for local government. Furthermore,
there has been no research to suggest that the implementation of BASIX as a
policy and as a tool has been a “success”. This thesis will start this process
by asking and answering some of these questions.
It is worth noting that the NSW Department of Planning intends to undertake
some studies into the BASIX tool and policy in 2008 (Eckstein & Palese 2004).
The exact nature of this research is not yet clear.
Methodology
The following techniques have been used to collect the information required
in this thesis.
i. Literature review: including academic and professional literature;
government publications; government records; legislation and the print
11
media. The broader scope of sustainability and sustainable development
are explored through international, national and sub-national reports,
enquiries and publications.
ii. Legislation review: BASIX legislation has been analysed with particular
focus on the intent, aims, objectives and mechanics of the legislation.
iii. In-depth interviews: Three geographically and developmentally diverse
local government areas have been selected for the research, and one or
two staff members from each LGA were selected for an interview, based
on the following criteria:
a. Involvement with BASIX certificates at development
assessment, construction certificate or complying development
stages of assessment;
b. Willingness to participate;
c. Time constraints.
In-depth interviewing is seen as an important and legitimate form of
social research, and is particularly useful for case study research and
providing personal experiences (Minichiello et al 2000).
Limitations
This study has been limited to meet the requirements of space and time that
apply. As such, it comments only on BASIX in the development assessment
process and within the Sydney basin. However, as some matters raised apply
to the NSW planning system, these matters may be assumed for other
locations in the State.
Ideally, the qualitative data collected to inform this thesis would be
supplemented by quantitative data and a greater deal of input from those
within the industry. This is research which is still required if we are to get a
greater perspective on the BASIX tool and its function and role. Further
research might also include surveying those outside the local government or
12
regulatory role in BASIX, and include its regular users and some single time
users. It may also include longer-term studies of lifestyle and housing choice.
The need for further research is discussed in detail in the Chapter Four.
13
ONE: BACKGROUND TO BASIX
This chapter introduces the concepts of sustainability and sustainable
development as a background to discussing the introduction and history of
the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) scheme.
14
1.1. Sustainability as a planning issue
Sustainability is a concept which has emerged after nearly forty years of
debate about the human condition and the environment, including early ideas
such as “Spaceship Earth” (coined by Boudling in 1966) and at international
conferences such as the UN Conference on the Environment and
Development in 1992 (Smith & Scott 2006; Dovers 2005).
The recognition that natural ecosystems are being fundamentally altered by
human development has played a primary role in making sustainability an
issue globally. The rate of environmental change is accelerating, and
according to Yencken and Wilkinson, is being driven by four powerful forces:
population increase; industry, commerce and development; technology; and
poverty (2000). Lowe (2005a) provides a similar list, but adds lifestyle
choices and the economic system as contributing to the problem of increased
rates of environmental change. These factors are changing the way that
humans interact with the environment, and the repercussions are not limited
in their geographical reach, with Australia’s fragile environment being
particularly affected by changes to global natural systems (Yencken &
Wilkinson 2000).
The greatest contemporary environmental issue is global climate change,
according to many authors (Dovers 2005; Lowe 2005a; Pitts 2004). It is in
and of itself a problem, but climate change also exacerbates other
environmental and non-environmental problems (Lowe 2005a). What has
become increasingly clear over the past decade is that “… the pathway of
human development is in many ways ecologically unsustainable and humanly
undesirable” (Dovers 2005: 3).
15
a) What is sustainability?
There is no widely accepted definition of sustainability (according to Dovers,
the term has not even been defined), nor is there consensus on its principles
(2005). However, sustainability generally refers to “… the ability of human
society to persist in the long term in a manner that satisfies human
development demands but without threatening the integrity of the natural
world” (Dovers 2005: 7), and as a broad concept includes the aims of
intergenerational equality; intra-generational equality; and combines the
environmental, economic and social concerns (referred to as the triple bottom
line approach) (Smith & Scott 2006; Dovers 2005; Goldie et al 2005). Some
authors now extend this to a “four pillared” approach, to include the concepts
of cultural sustainability (Yencken & Wilkinson 2000:6) or institutional
sustainability (Blakely & Yip 2006). Sustainability is considered a goal, with
‘sustainable development’ the process or journey of achieving this goal
(Yencken & Wilkinson 2000).
In the absence of a single definition of sustainability, there is discussion of its
issues, problems and conditions. Dovers (2005) describes the four issues of
sustainability as:
1. Resource depletion and degradation;
2. Pollution and wastes;
3. Fundamental ecological life support services; and
4. Society and the human condition.
These issues include the “problems” of biodiversity loss; land, water and
energy resources; pollution of waters; ecosystem integrity; climate change;
population growth; poverty; health and disease; and trade and debt inequities
(Dovers 2005). Other authors such as McManus (2005) include more specific
issues such as transport, however these are generally included under Dovers’
fourth issue of society and the human condition.
16
b) Criticisms of sustainability
Sustainability has come under fire from all sides of the political spectrum and
a range of groups with vested interests in the environmental, social and
economic condition, despite “widespread agreement” about the need for
sustainable development (McManus 2005: 1).
Some environmentalists have raised concerns about the anthropocentrism
which is written into the principles of sustainability (Meadowcroft 2000: 269).
Sustainability focuses on ensuring equality and access to resources for
humans and future generations, but pays little attention to retaining and
protecting ecosystems, habitats and species for their intrinsic value (Suzuki
2003).
Those that Meadowcroft refers to as “developmental” critics have argued that
sustainability is simply an attempt to impose a ‘developed’ environmental
agenda on the developing world (2000: 270). Similarly, some believe that the
issues of equality and the environment are confused; however Meadowcroft
believes these issues are linked (2000).
The greatest and most common criticism of sustainability is its ambiguity –
the ambiguity of its definition and its aims and principles. According to
Dovers, the aims are “… rather general and largely aspirational”, and provide
little direction in policy and institutional challenges (2005: 59). This should
not impose a constraint on sustainable development, according to
Meadowcroft, as sustainable development was and is a “political meta-
objective”, designed to invoke a unified response, rather than provide a set of
guidelines for achieving an end point (2000: 270).
The science of sustainability has also been criticised, and the need for urgent
and long term action to prevent further environmental degradation has been
questioned (e.g., by Lomborg in his 2001 book, ‘The Skeptical
17
Environmentalist’). Modelling and predictions must, by their nature, involve
guesswork, with Yencken and Wilkinson for example suggesting that figures
for the earth’s maximum human carrying capacity can be anywhere between
two billion and infinity depending on the methodology utilised (2000). Taking
into account that science is a “very conservative field” (Lowe 2005: 12), and
that issues are being raised with increasing urgency, it is obvious that some
issues are clear cut – according to Lowe, it is “indisputable” that the global
climate is changing (2005: 12).
Other issues which complicate the concept and the need for sustainability are
the scale and scope of the problems and issues which exist spatially at every
level from the planet to local environmental issues (McManus 2005). The
time scale required to progress towards sustainability also complicates the
matter, as it is considered that ongoing management will be required for an
indefinite time frame.
c) Sustainability as a planning issue
Planning developed in the late nineteenth century as a mechanism to “…
integrate health factors to do with waste and water into the design of the city
… as well as other issues such as parks and transport” (Newman n.d:6). The
planning system has since become more complex, and developed several
functions, generally divided into strategic planning and development control
planning. Strategic planning is the discipline of planning which involves
creating and implementing plans and strategies for future development, and
may include the development of Local Environmental Plans or Development
Control Plans. Development control planning is a statutory role which
involves assessing and planning development in relation to the environmental
laws and planning instruments (Farrier & Stein 2006).
18
Strategic planning has “increasingly” looked at sustainability as a guiding
principle, as it assesses the values of the population and guides future
development in an economically, environmentally and socially considerate
manner (Newman n.d: 6). Newman cites a range of strategies developed over
the past decade which have been guided by sustainability, including the
Melbourne Metropolitan 2030 Strategy and the Tasmania Together Plan
(n.d.). Sustainability has also become a core in statutory planning, with the
principle of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD) being increasingly
incorporated in environmental law (Farrier & Stein 2006). This requires
development control planners to take these matters – for individual sites and
cumulatively for the community – into account in professional life.
Hall cites sustainable development as one of the greatest challenges facing
strategic and development control planners in contemporary times – others
would go a step further and single out sustainability as the most important
and the greatest challenge (Hall in Moriarty 2002). While sustainability is not
an issue limited to planning and planners, its importance has been recognised
by the Australian planning industry association, the Planning Institute of
Australia, who have incorporated it as a prerequisite consideration for all
signatories of the PIA Code of Professional Conduct (PIA 2002). They have
also adopted the motto “creating sustainable communities” (PIA 2006).
Sustainable development should ultimately be addressed at every stage of the
planning continuum, from the consideration of national and global issues of
population and land releases, to the local issues of individual building and site
design (Pitts 2004). Without being addressed at every level, achievements in
one facet of sustainable development can be undermined in the next stage.
This is one of the criticisms of the early approaches to sustainability.
19
1.2. Early approaches to sustainability
Responses to the need for sustainability have been considered poor across
the board. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations has
recognised this, commenting,
“We must face up to the inescapable reality: the challenges of
sustainability simply overwhelm the adequacy of our responses. With
some honourable exceptions our responses are too few, too little and
too late” (Annan in McManus 2005: 193).
Primary criticisms of the policy response to the problem of sustainability
include the problem of definition (Dovers 2005); governments weakening the
aims and principles of sustainability (Smith & Scott 2006; Dovers 2005);
legislative failure (Smith & Scott 2006); and a lack of flexibility in responses
(Dovers 2005).
International responses to sustainability have included policies and
agreements, but have been criticised in their implementation (e.g., Elliott
2004). However, the most serious criticisms have been at the nation-state
and State levels. In this regard, Meadowcroft notes that the term appears in
“… prominent statements of government intent, in the publications of official
agencies and advisory bodies, and in national plans and strategy documents”
(2000: 270).
Sustainability is common now, particularly in legislation (Blakely & Yip 2006;
Farrier & Stein 2006; Meadowcroft 2000). However, there is a belief that
most of the policies are “more obvious in their existence than in their
implementation” (Dovers 2005: 52). Dovers believes that the reason
responses have fallen short of expectations is because responses have been
in the “… vein of weak sustainability” (2005: 53). Weak sustainability (as
opposed to strong sustainability) is an economic distinction, and assumes that
natural capital and natural resources can be replaced by human-made capital
20
and resources, and that the use of market mechanisms will control and
restrict problems caused by growth and in the environment (Dovers 2005).
These weak sustainability policies have also been accompanied with an
increasing use of self-regulation. Dovers believes sustainability is yet to
become a “…core consideration in public policy … and equal priority with …
economic … imperatives” (2005: 53).
Some efforts for sustainability are carried out by non-government
organisations. Greenpeace, for example, works globally and locally to
promote sustainability. While much of the focus is on its policies and
education for environmental sustainability, Greenpeace also has policy and
educational goals relating to sustainable trade, for example (Greenpeace
2006). While Greenpeace and other non-government organisations do not
have the power of political or government organisations, they rely on
individuals and communities for support and their successes can be
considered a measure of interest in sustainability issues.
Certainly the acceptance that the current responses to sustainability are
inadequate is common. Dovers believes that beyond inadequate policy
responses, the “… institutional arrangements and knowledge systems may
have difficulty with sustainability problems” (2005: 49). It should therefore
be accepted that policy, management and institutional change is required if
an honest commitment is to be made to achieving sustainability.
a) Australian approaches to sustainability
Local Government
The importance of individuals and community action in achieving
sustainability is commonly cited (Smith & Scott 2006; McManus 2005). Many
authors believe that local government is the best level to achieve the
21
objectives of sustainability, due to its existing ability to engage the local
community and for knowledge of the local area (Dovers & Wild River 2002).
Sustainability objectives have been integrated into local government
administration and policy to date, with local government taking responsibility
for international agreements (such as Local Agenda 21). This shows a
willingness to engage with international sustainability concerns.
Individually, the responses to sustainability in local government have been
mixed. Some Councils have approached the issue with practical vigour,
developing stringent controls on development and even designing and
constructing showcase development. Kogarah Council, in Sydney’s south, has
developed its Town Square based on the principles of sustainability, with a
focus on water conservation, energy conservation, developing a community
meeting place to foster relationships, providing a mix of uses within single
buildings and developing with respect to site constraints such as orientation
and passive design (Kogarah Council 2006). The development has won praise
worldwide, and is a good example of embodying the principles of
sustainability through sustainable design. Other Councils have considered the
‘institutional sustainability’ of their workplace and have improved the
efficiency of the workplace and procedures, while others have included
general statements of intent into their mission statements (Meadowcroft
2000). Incentives and competitions for the local community and local
businesses have also been implemented, with Hurstville Council, also in
Sydney’s south, being one of several councils to run the “Green Street”
program, aiming to reduce waste, energy and water use from local retail
strips (Hurstville Council 2006).
Issues such as waste management, recycling, stormwater, landscaping and
bush regeneration have also been addressed at local government level, with a
range of policies and initiatives. Regional organisations of Councils have also
been pivotal, developing energy efficiency controls and pooling resources for
22
members (e.g., South Sydney Region of Councils’ ‘Sustainability Guidelines for
Decisionmakers’ and South Sydney Region of Council’s grant for Kogarah
Council’s ‘Retail your Rubbish’ program).
The politics of local government are considered a major impediment to the
achievement of sustainability. Local government is particularly sensitive to
vocal minorities, which can result in undemocratic decision-making and can
be dominated by pro-development interests (Beer et al 2003). In addition,
the relative power and control of local government can be misleading, as local
government only exists under State legislation and under State government
control. It is not formally recognised in the Constitution, and all matters over
which it has control have been delegated by State government. Beer et al
believe this puts local government very much “under the thumb” of State
government interests when issues significant to the State are involved (2003).
The size and scale of local government is also prohibitive, especially in
metropolitan areas, and boundaries do not correspond with “logical
environmental regions” (Beer et al 2003: 235). Due to its size, local
government might also have financial and human resource constraints to
dealing with sustainability (Beer et al 2003).
Despite these constraints, current literature remains optimistic about the role
of local government in achieving sustainability. It is recognised that major
reform would be required to the structure, financing and legal competence of
local government (Daly 2001).
State Government
The NSW government has undertaken a range of initiatives and policies under
the flag of sustainability. Dovers discusses the emergence of mega-
departments as an example of the way governments try to implement
institutional change to achieve sustainability (2005). This creation of mega-
departments was undertaken in NSW with the Department of Infrastructure,
23
Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), which attempted to integrate a
range of environmental and land use functions into a single department. This
was not a success and the NSW Government has since separated the
planning controls back into a single department.
The NSW Government has also developed legislation and policies to manage
and inform decision-making for a range of natural resource and sustainability
issues, including the introduction of threatened species legislation; changes to
the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), and the
introduction of new and amended environmental laws and environmental
planning instruments. Better management of water and energy resources has
also been a focus, with legislation introduced to allow subsidies, offsets and
on selling of carbon credits in NSW (Davies & Noonan 2004).
The NSW Government has come under attack in recent years, because
despite legislation and policy changes, environment groups criticised the
government for failing to meet its environmental responsibilities (Davies &
Noonan 2004; Total Environment Centre 2006). These criticisms have
included “ … depriving NSW rivers of sufficient flows to keep them healthy;
selling 3.5 million hectares of crown leasehold; watering down laws to protect
threatened species from extinction; failing to manage national parks and
wilderness areas” (Davies & Noonan 2004: 34). It would be fair to comment
that some of these actions undermine attempts by the NSW State
Government to achieve sustainability.
Commonwealth Government
According to Beer et al, the only tier of government in Australia with the
resources to facilitate regional economic development, a component of
sustainability, is the Commonwealth government (2003). The Howard
government has expressed its support for regional approaches to the
management of natural resources:
24
“The devolution of authority to regional bodies would be
complemented with resourcing and skilling to assist regional communities to
develop and implement strategies, including planning, negotiating and
monitoring regional strategies” (AFFA quoted in Beer et al, 2003: 235).
Interestingly, this view may have been reversed with the Commonwealth
recently expressing an interest in controlling water resources throughout
Australia (Walsh 2006).
Despite having greater resources available to it, the Commonwealth
government’s policies for sustainability thus far have been criticised:
for not dealing comprehensively with the identified problems;
for inadequate resources and implementation of policies;
for a lack of effective legislation or administrative base;
because policies have not seriously begun to tackle the issues of
population, consumption or technology; or energy or material uses
for a lack of systemic monitoring, feedback and solving problems
where necessary; and
because “… there have been very few unambiguous successes in
reversing adverse environmental trends” (Yencken & Wilkinson 2000).
One of the true, legal difficulties for the Commonwealth government taking
responsibility for achieving sustainability is the division of powers under
Section 51 of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1901). The Commonwealth has responsibility for several matters of
importance to achieving sustainability notably defence, trade and the power
to represent Australia’s international interests. Other critical elements for
sustainability are under control of the States, including law and order,
education, planning and the environment, and health. The division of powers
makes a concerted effort by either government incomplete. It also raises the
issue of politics, particularly in cases such as the present, where different
political parties control Commonwealth and State governments.
25
Despite these legal issues, the Commonwealth have signed a range of
international conventions and treaties on behalf of Australia which relate to
sustainability policies, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, which
protects wetlands of international significance. The Commonwealth also has
the power to affect the decisions made by the States through legal means –
an example of this is the Tasmanian Dams case. In this case, the
Commonwealth Government intervened to put a halt to development of a
dam in Tasmania which could have affected its status as World Heritage area
(Farrier & Stein 2006).
26
1.3. History of BASIX
BASIX, the Building Sustainability Index, was introduced by the NSW
Government to improve the energy and water efficiency of homes in NSW
(BASIX 2006). Eckstein and Palese and the Green Building Council Australia
believe that the Sydney Olympics in 2000 provided a catalyst and an
improved focus on the issue of sustainable development (2004; 2006). The
Olympics were won by the NSW Government on the basis of being the ‘green
games’ and, while this applied to the greater issues of land use, material
choice and transportation, it also applied to the residential development
provided for the athletes and the officials, which was later sold privately
(GBCA 2006).
The NSW Government formed the Sustainability Advisory Council (SAC)
following the Sydney Olympic Games, with a panel of experts to address the
issue of sustainable development (Eckstein & Palese 2004). At the time of
the SAC’s formation, NSW was undergoing a residential property and building
boom – with a new dwelling completed every fourteen minutes (Eckstein &
Palese 2004: 27). Projections by Blakely and Yip predict “… three million new
dwellings” between 2006 and 2025 Australia wide (2006: 45), which they
believe highlights the role that housing will play in “attaining the goal of
sustainable development” (2006: 40). The increased demand for housing –
and bigger housing – often built without adequate access to public transport,
affects land use, energy and resource consumption (Eckstein & Palese 2004;
Blakely & Yip 2006). On a global scale, buildings consume “one third of the
world’s resources” (Blakely & Yip 2006: 45).
Around Australia there was a growing trend for local councils to consider and
include the principles of sustainability in urban policies and development
standards (Blakely & Yip 2006). However, these responses varied
enormously, according to Eckstein and Palese (2004), with some very
proactive strategies (e.g., Leichhardt Council’s mandatory rainwater tank
27
controls); while others paid only lip service to the issue. Developers and the
housing industry raised issues with the different standards across NSW and
particularly across the Sydney Basin, and were concerned about:
• variability in requirements across Councils;
• the implications of the standards on compliance costs; and
• the variability “… in data and information available to decision makers
about what are effective sustainability requirements” (Eckstein &
Palese 2004: 27).
Taking into account the growth and rate of residential development, the
piecemeal approaches across NSW to sustainable development and the
concerns of the development industry, the SAC recommended the
establishment of a “progressive sustainable design tool”, and this is where the
concept of the Building Sustainability Index was born (Eckstein & Palese
2004: 28).
Draft BASIX underwent broad stakeholder consultation (BASIX 2006). Local
government responses were mixed, however they raised three main areas of
concern:
• The need to add value to the ‘BASIX’ by “clarifying the sustainability
ask” (Eckstein & Palese 2004: 29);
• That BASIX should be statutory, not voluntary; and
• That the State government should be responsible for ensuring
appropriate training is provided for certification and verification needs
(Eckstein & Palese 2004).
The development industry generally repeated these concerns, but also
emphasised the financial implications of BASIX; specifically compliance cost
concerns and the potential for financial incentives for compliance (Eckstein &
Palese 2004).
A web-based, design assessment tool was chosen to meet requirements for a
flexible yet outcomes-based policy, which would aim to reduce energy and
28
water consumption. Important features to be included were the necessity for
a compulsory standard; for it to be effective, measurable and easy-to-use;
and to be simple and free (Eckstein & Palese 2004). Initial targets of
reducing mains water use by 40% and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
25% compared to the average new dwelling were set, and BASIX controls
applied to Councils in the Sydney region from the 1st July 2004 (except the
Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Wollondilly local government areas) (Farrier
& Stein 2006).
The BASIX scheme’s focus on flexibility means that the owner can select
which features to include in their design to meet the minimum targets.
Information such as the site location, house size and material use is checked
against regional variations such as soil type, local climate and rainfall to
ensure that the most accurate calculations are utilised (BASIX 2006: BASIX
Fact Sheet). BASIX provides the following examples of sustainable housing
features:
Rainwater tanks, plumbed to toilet, garden and/or laundry;
Efficient (3A-5A) showerheads, toilets and tap fittings;
Use of indigenous garden species;
Grey water system where appropriate;
Solar, heat pump or high efficiency gas hot water systems;
Efficient pool heating and pumps;
Good solar orientation;
Cross ventilation;
Insulation;
External shading;
Performance glazing for large glazed areas and/or poorly oriented
areas;
Ceiling fans, evaporative coolers or high efficiency air conditioning;
Energy efficient lighting; and
Alternative energy systems such as photovoltaics. (BASIX 2006a).
29
The BASIX tool also allows innovative solutions that fall outside the ability of
the web-based tool to calculate. Alternative assessment is provided by the
Department of Planning, with alternative solutions such as wetland water
recycling assessed by scientific and environmental experts, with a set of
controls specifically designed for the site (BASIX 2006). In this way BASIX
does not limit creativity and innovation in the sustainable design industry.
Similarly, new products that are released are assessed for use in the tool; and
the tool is regularly updated to include common innovations.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the history of BASIX.
30
2000 Sydney hosted the ‘green’ Olympic Games, which included the
development of a ‘sustainable’ urban village, sold to the public
after the Games
Post-2000 Formation of the Sustainability Advisory Council: work towards
improving residential sustainability
2002 Early - Work began on developing BASIX – research and
stakeholder consultation
Late – Small scale consultation was undertaken with industry
groups
2003 March – Formal consultation with the industry began, and
were provided with an early draft of the tool
September – the Department held a BASIX Local Government
Partnership Program with 7 local governments across NSW.
Feedback provided to the Department about local government
needs and expectations
2004 May – BASIX for single dwellings, dual occupancies and
boarding houses on public exhibition
July – BASIX launched for single dwellings, dual occupancy
developments and boarding houses in most Sydney LGAs
October-November – BASIX for multi-unit residential
development on public exhibition
2005 April-May – BASIX for regional single dwellings, dual
occupancies and boarding houses on public exhibition
July – BASIX expanded to all single dwellings, dual occupancy
developments and boarding houses throughout NSW
October – BASIX expanded to all new residential
development, including multi-unit and multi-storey, throughout
NSW
2006 January-February – BASIX for alterations and additions on
public exhibition
31
July – Greenhouse gas emission target increased to 40%
October – BASIX expanded to all residential alterations and
additions in NSW (with a cost over $100,000; or a swimming
pool with a capacity greater than 40kL)
FIGURE ONE: Overview of the development and implementation of the BASIX
scheme. (Source: adapted from BASIX 2006)
32
TWO: BASIX IN PRACTICE
This chapter describes the legislative and policy changes made by the New
South Wales Government to introduce the Building Sustainability Index. It
also describes the processes which are implemented through local
government on a broad level.
33
2.1 The mechanics of BASIX
Working within the current development assessment process for NSW was an
important consideration when designing BASIX and planning for its
implementation (PlanningNSW 2002). The time, effort and expenditure of
local government policies for residential sustainability were at the core of the
development of BASIX; Scott and Smith note that the BASIX scheme is almost
entirely based on work that had already been developed by local government
(2006).
The BASIX scheme underwent significant consultation with the public prior to
its implementation, according to Eckstein and Palese (2004). This included
public workshops; research and involvement in the development assessment
process across a range of local government areas; the establishment of a
BASIX Industry Workgroup; and presentations to various stakeholder groups.
The single dwelling tool was exhibited and over ninety submissions were
received, with “… over 7,500 visits to the BASIX website and over 700 people
… directly briefed or trained on BASIX” (Eckstein & Palese 2004: 30). An
Industry Consultation Tool version of BASIX was produced and provided to
industry stakeholders at certain presentations, who were also provided with
electronic and hard copy feedback forms, and the scheme was refined based
on these responses and public exhibition responses (Eckstein & Palese 2004).
a) EP&A Regulation Amendments
To enact the Building Sustainability Index scheme, amendments were
introduced to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
(NSW). The regulation is legislation which works in tandem with the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and provides
procedural requirements for development assessment and planning in New
34
South Wales, in conjunction with the procedures described in the Local
Government Act 1993 (NSW).
The first amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000 (NSW); the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004;
established the scheme for single dwellings. It provided definitions related to
the BASIX scheme – such as “BASIX affected building” and “initial BASIX
area”. This amendment also described the conditions under which an
amended BASIX Certificate is required during and following assessment;
provided dates on which each portion of the scheme applied; the
requirements for modifications to development consent under section 96 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW); and the issuing
of final and occupation certificates, among other procedures described.
A savings and transition provision clause was also provided in the
amendment, which excluded developments which met certain criteria; more
specifically, development where a building agreement was entered into before
the starting date of the BASIX scheme, or where an offer or a deposit was
made for a building agreement. This was included following a request from
members of the residential building industry, and Eckstein and Palese believe
this was a “very successful compromise” which had less of an impact on the
housing industry than immediate implementation (2004: 30).
Further amendments have since been made to the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) to minimise confusion and to enact
variations in the BASIX scheme; e.g., the introduction of BASIX controls for
multi-unit and mixed use developments. Confusion between BASIX controls
and other planning controls are cleared through amendments to the
Regulation.
35
Amendments made to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation
2000 (NSW) in 2006 have changed the requirements for final Occupation
Certificates. BASIX affected developments require the receipt of a BASIX
compliance certificate. A savings and transitional clause was included as a
part of that amendment.
b) State Environmental Planning Policy
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)
2004 (SEPP BASIX), aimed to encourage sustainable residential development,
according to Farrier and Stein (2006). SEPP BASIX essentially reiterates the
provisions, definitions and procedures described in the amended
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW), and more
specifically, includes a Clause for the Policy to “override provisions in other
environmental planning instruments and development control plans that
would otherwise add to, subtract from or modify any obligations arising from
the BASIX scheme” (Cl. 3(3), SEPP BASIX; see also Cl. 7).
SEPP BASIX also aimed to ensure “consistency in the implementation of the
BASIX scheme throughout the State” (Cl. 3(2)).
Clause 10 of the SEPP cleared up any confusion about the potential for State
Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards to alter the
requirements of the BASIX scheme.
36
2.2 The Development Application Process
The process followed for a development application in New South Wales
varies based on a range of factors, including whether the application is
considered integrated development, complying development or whether the
application is for a major project (Farrier & Stein 2006). Development
applications to be assessed by a local Council will generally follow the process
illustrated in Figure 2.
1: Pre application Consultation with Council for information
regarding development on certain land
Pre-lodgement meeting (if necessary)
Fees/forms advice from Council
Lodgement requirements
Design and preparation of application
2: Application For DA development – lodge application
For complying development – lodge Complying
Development Certificate application
Notification and advertisement of application
(if necessary)
Changes to application or submission of
additional information (if necessary)
3: Determination of
Application
Application for DA or CDC assessed
Determination made based on assessment
criteria (EP&A Act 1979 s.79C including Council
controls)
4: Construction
Certificate
Required for DA development only
A Construction Certificate is issued only if the
certifying authority is satisfied that the plans
and specifications are not inconsistent with the
development consent
If inconsistent, a new development application
37
or a s.96 application for a modification to a
consent is required
5: Construction and
Certification
Appointment and notification of a principal
certifying authority
Notice to Council prior to commencement
Mandatory inspections of progress
Issue of Occupation Certificates (interim and
final)
FIGURE TWO: Key Stages in the Development Assessment Process. Adapted from
UTS et al (1998) Approvals 98, Guide to the new legislation and associated changes; and
BASIX (n.d.) BASIX in the development approval process in NSW.
The development assessment process is based on the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. However, the
assessment process can be affected by other legislation such as the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or by environmental planning
instruments, which affect the way assessment is carried out (Farrier & Stein
2006).
BASIX in the Local Government Process
The introduction of the BASIX scheme has affected all key stages of the
development assessment process. As the onus of the BASIX scheme is on the
applicant to meet the requirements for energy and water savings and thermal
performance, the bulk of the interaction with the scheme occurs at the Pre-
application stage. Applicants are required to complete the BASIX assessment
at www.basix.nsw.gov.au, and when they have satisfied the requirements,
they are issued a BASIX Certificate. The commitments listed in the Certificate
must be marked on the plans to be submitted to the certifying authority
(BASIX n.d.).
38
Submission requirements for BASIX also altered the development assessment
process. Development applications and Complying Development applications
require the submission of a BASIX Certificate and marked plans, as well as
any additional information which may be required as a result of the BASIX
commitments, for example, specifications for insulation or rainwater tanks.
Any changes to the plans as a part of the assessment of the application (e.g.,
due to neighbour notification or compliance with Council standards) require
the submission of a new BASIX Certificate and amended plans.
If approved, development consent is granted which imposes a condition for
the compliance with BASIX commitments. Any changes to the plans prior to,
or during construction require the submission of a s.96 modification
application to the Council and submission of a new BASIX Certificate.
For developments which require a Construction Certificate, plans,
specifications and a copy of the Certificate must be submitted for assessment.
If the certifying authority is satisfied that the plans are consistent with the
development consent and meet the commitments listed on the BASIX
Certificate (among other matters), then a Construction Certificate can be
issued (BASIX n.d.). Construction on the development can occur after
meeting Council requirements.
The BASIX scheme requires the certifying authority to ensure that BASIX
commitments have been built as approved before issuing an Occupation
Certificate. Since 1st July 2006, certifiers have also been required to provide a
Completion Receipt following the issue of a final Occupation Certificate (BASIX
2006a).
39
THREE: PROBLEMS WITH BASIX
This chapter raises some of the problems with BASIX based on the
perceptions of local government staff.
40
3.1 Methodology and introduction
This chapter presents a range of problems which have arisen since the
introduction of the BASIX scheme in 2004. These problems are based on
personal experience and the experiences of staff from several, geographically
diverse local government areas in Sydney. Participants in the study were
selected based on the following criteria:
Involvement with BASIX certificates at development assessment,
construction certificate or complying development stages of
assessment;
Willingness to participate;
Time constraints.
All individuals agreed to be interviewed and provide their feedback on the
BASIX scheme, the BASIX tool and the assessment process. All interviewees
have requested anonymity and names as they appear here are not actual
names.
In addition to the problems which are discussed in the following chapter, all
interviewees agreed that the concept of BASIX, and its aims for more
sustainable residential development, were noble and worthy. All felt that the
scheme was being let down by a poorly conceived process and by
administrative failure. This is consistent with McManus’ belief that
sustainability is a popular aim, despite the way it is often carried out through
policy (2005).
On the basis of these studies the following criticisms are raised and discussed
in this chapter:
The Government’s commitment to sustainability
The limited scope of BASIX in addressing sustainability
The lack of post-occupancy evaluation and monitoring
Conflict with exempt requirements
The complexity of the scheme for owners and applicants
41
The complexity of the system for assessment staff
Cost and time burden
The lack of support from the NSW Government
The lack of consistency between Councils
42
3.2 The concept
The problems raised by the implementation of BASIX can be divided into two
categories: those which are problems with the concept of sustainability and
the policy of sustainable residential development; and those which relate
directly to the implementation issues in the development assessment process.
The issues in this section relate to problems with the concept of sustainability,
policy and governance.
a) The Government’s commitment to sustainability
The New South Wales Government has published two major documents in
recent times which sparingly use the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable
development”. The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, which aims to provide a
planning and growth framework for Sydney until 2031, uses the term
“sustainable development” only twice (DOP 2005: 16, 26), and does not
discuss the concepts which define the term. The document instead uses
terms such as “moving towards sustainability” (see DOP 2005: 16, 24).
The NSW Government has also released a draft “State Plan”, which aims to
develop a framework for all future public policy in NSW for the next decade,
through the use of community accepted themes and priorities (NSW Premier’s
Department 2006). Even in its current, draft form, the document uses the
term “sustainability” only twice in forty-three pages, and uses the term only in
relation to the natural environment (NSW Premier’s Department 2006: 41,
42). The term “sustainable development” does not feature in the document
at all.
These two documents play an important role in the future of public policy in
NSW and more specifically in Sydney, by setting controls for the policy and
the planning which is to follow. While it is worth taking into account the
43
political cycles and the result of changes in government on planning
strategies, these plans have and will take up a considerable amount of
government time and effort, including hours of public consultation (NSW
Premier’s Department 2006: Forward). The limited use of the terms
“sustainability” and “sustainable development” are either recognition of a
change in priorities or language, or a very serious oversight.
This attitude is reflected through the Government’s administrative role over
the BASIX website. BASIX has been allocated its own website since before
the BASIX tool became active prior to its requirement in the development
assessment process (Eckstein & Palese 2006). This website is:
www.basix.nsw.gov.au, and follows the pattern for NSW Government website
allocation, where a term or abbreviation follows the www. prefix which
describes the function of the website.
Despite the wide recognition in the academic and professional world of the
difficulties of progressing towards sustainability, the NSW Government has
allocated its website www.sustainability.nsw.gov.au to the BASIX tool and its
website (through the process of redirection). This is a concern, as the
“sustainability” domain name provides the NSW Government with the
opportunity to provide information to the public about a range of initiatives
they are undertaking under a range of ministries and policies.
Aside from the perception of this being a missed opportunity for the NSW
Government to provide information and contact details, this also possibly
suggests to the public that BASIX is the Government’s sole sustainability
strategy. This is a very one dimensional response to sustainability issues. As
new residential development applies to only a portion of all development
undertaken in NSW and Sydney, this suggests that the NSW Government
does not take the issues of sustainability seriously. Furthermore, it potentially
undermines other policies which are being implemented all over NSW and in
other Government departments, such as improving access to health and
44
education services, rehabilitation of wetlands and research into the
sustainability of fishing stocks etc.
b) Limited scope of BASIX in addressing sustainability
The BASIX tool has been designed to consider the energy and water savings
of particular design and appliance use in a residential dwelling, as well as
assessing whether the dwelling meets minimum thermal comfort
requirements (contributing to the energy savings requirements). The tool in
its current form certainly addresses the issue of the consumption of certain
natural resources, such as water and fossil fuels, and addresses the issue of
greenhouse gas emissions related to domestic energy use (Eckstein & Palese
2004; Newman n.d.).
There is a range of issues of sustainable development that BASIX does not
take into account. These are primarily factors which may be considered the
traditional domain of “strategic” planning, or of land use, transport, and
broader, community design issues which affect lifestyle and choices. Pitts
(2004) raises concern over the sustainability of new urban release areas,
which he believes are unlikely to be sustainable due to distance from centres
etc, despite the ‘sustainability’ of individual buildings. The implications of
continued development on the urban fringe could have greater impact on the
sustainability of a city as a whole than the sustainability of the individual
residential dwellings in the city’s bounds (Pitts 2004). Concerns such as
distance to work, distance to education, provision of open space and other
planning issues which address the health and other sustainability concerns
such as social sustainability are not considered under the current BASIX
system.
Tools that measure the “sustainability” of development use a range of factors
worldwide. Pitts provides an overview of several tools used in North America,
45
Canada, Europe and Australia (2004). Pitts advocates the use of tools and
describes them as “… necessary to compare or demonstrate the
environmental effects of urban or building schemes” (85). None of the tools
which Pitts analyses can be directly compared to BASIX, as BASIX is the only
tool which is mandatory, flexible and includes thermal comfort assessment as
part of a wider assessment. However, only one rating tool claims to take into
account the impacts of the development on a wider range of issues; the
Sustainability Checklist for Developments. As the name suggests, this tool
does not provide a rating based on numerical data, but is a list of
requirements that must be met at the “urban village” scale of development.
According to Pitts, it is a good tool but can be skewed by the user depending
on the selection of inputs and outputs (2004: 87). Most tools discussed by
Pitts are used for assessing the sustainability of commercial buildings and
assess life-cycle sustainability. This system differs from BASIX, as BASIX does
not measure post-occupancy “sustainability” (Eckstein & Palese 2004).
Eckstein and Palese (2004) and Newman (n.d.) mention the intention of the
Department of Planning to expand the BASIX tool to take into account “…
other indices, e.g., transport and open space” (32). These are the only
mentions of the expansion of the tool into other areas of ‘sustainable
development’. There have been no indications over the past two years as to
whether this expansion will take place.
c) The lack of post-occupancy evaluation and monitoring
BASIX was introduced as a tool to measure the efficiency and natural
resource consumption of the design of a dwelling, as opposed to measuring
the post occupancy efficiency and use of the dwelling. This means the focus
of BASIX is on design features such as cross ventilation, and fittings and
fixtures.
46
While the inclusion of fittings and fixtures may increase the awareness of
environmental sustainability issues and encourages forethought in the use of
energy and water, it does not necessarily impact the lifestyle choices and
post-occupancy use of a building (Newman 2005). The targets set by the
Government for BASIX are reached by applicants using the program based on
forecasting and modelling; in essence, it relies on assumptions about the use
of the dwelling and lifestyle. There is no way of ascertaining whether these
targets are being met, or indeed, whether savings above and beyond average
energy and water efficiency are being made.
This issue has been highlighted by a Council Senior Building Inspector, who
commented that there is a rising occurrence of the use of floatation refill
devices in rainwater tanks now being installed. This is as opposed to the use
of two sets of plumbing and a switch – so that when the tank is low, the
owner can manually switch to mains water. The floatation device triggers a
refill from mains water, which means that tanks which are intended to hold
water harvested from the site are simply holding tanks for mains water. This
is likely to have an implication for water use, as Sydney’s water restrictions
are less stringent on the use of tank water, despite the potential for the tank
water to simply be mains water.
47
3.3 Impacts on the DA process
The following problems with the BASIX scheme are in the development
assessment process in NSW and some are commonly encountered by
assessment staff. The problems vary in severity across the Sydney region,
based on Council procedures and policies.
a) Conflict with exempt requirements
In 1997 the NSW Government introduced amendments to the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) which changed the process of
classifying development (Farrier & Stein 2006). This introduced several sub-
categories to the existing three-fold classification of development –
development which does not require consent; development which requires
consent, and prohibited development. These sub-categories are exempt and
complying development.
To supplement their creation, the Government introduced State
Environmental Planning Policy 60 – Exempt and Complying Development
(SEPP 60), which provides controls and definitions of the type of development
which can be carried out without consent, to be applied in cases where the
local government areas do not have their own controls in a Local
Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (in most cases). The types
of development permitted without consent (exempt development) is generally
minor scale development which is perceived to have minor environmental
impact, including landscaping, some alterations, demolitions and fences and
flagpoles (Farrier & Stein 2006). Despite not requiring consent, these
developments must meet certain standards, or they do not fit into this
category of development and must therefore be assessed under other
legislative standards.
48
The aim of the changes to the legislation in 1997 was to simplify the
development application process and to allow homeowners to undertake
minor or minimal development on their property without the financial and
time burden of an application at Council. It also reduced the workload for
Council, weeding out applications of a minor nature which were time
consuming and guaranteed approval (Andrew, 3rd October 2006).
When BASIX was introduced through reforms to the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Regulation 2000 and SEPP BASIX, the controls of BASIX and
those written into the tool took controls on the same matters away from local
government. The primacy of BASIX controls over other controls is written
into BASIX legislation and discussed in Chapter Two. While this includes
more general areas such as thermal performance ratings and water tanks, it
also includes other development, such as landscaping, colour schemes and
ancillary development such as air conditioners. BASIX Certificates stipulate
which, if any, of these additional developments are required and the minimum
performance of each.
Problems have since arisen where Councils have developed ‘exempt and
complying’ controls, under pressure from the State government, which
include matters such as air conditioning units as exempt if they meet certain
conditions. However, new single dwellings may be issued a BASIX Certificate
which stipulates that no active heating or cooling system may be approved as
part of the development. Meeting the minimum energy and thermal comfort
scores or a development can hinge on the exclusion of active heating and
cooling. Yet under most Council ‘exempt and complying’ controls, an air
conditioning unit can be installed on any property where it is not within a
certain proximity to a neighbouring property, and does not exceed certain
noise standards (e.g., Ashfield LEP 1985, sch. 8; Randwick Exempt and
Complying Development DCP).
49
These controls can be at odds with one another, and allows developers and
owners to exploit the development control system. Of more concern is the
impact that this sort of legislative oversight could have on achieving
sustainable development. That an owner can build a BASIX certified house
and have it approved with no air conditioner, and then add an air conditioner
following issue of a final Occupation Certificate, raises serious questions about
the thought and effort which has been invested in the system.
This also raises questions about whether these controls should be
reconsidered, so that development such as air conditioners becomes
development which requires consent. If this is to occur it will remove any
time and cost benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the
exempt and complying development controls. In effect, it could result in a
greater number of applications with Council for minor or ancillary
development of the type that Council had previously eliminated, and have
implications for staff and resources in local government.
The example of air conditioners has been used here as it appears the most
common conflict encountered in local government (based on interviews with
Council and ex-Council staff, and personal experience).
b) The complexity of the system for owners and applicants
When the concept of BASIX was touted, a conscious decision was made by
the NSW Government and the Sustainability Advisory Council to develop a
tool which was free and simple to use (Eckstein & Palese 2004). This was to
allow owners and applicants to complete the BASIX Certification themselves,
without the need to pay an expert, and also to allow home owners to have
greater control over their BASIX commitments, particularly for single dwellings
and alterations and addition (Eckstein & Palese 2006).
50
Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not necessarily occurring in practice –
and that the BASIX tool is too complicated for the average homeowner
building a new home. Council employees in the greater Sydney area relate
stories of draft BASIX Certificates being submitted to Council; of applications
missing additional information; of plans which do not comply with the BASIX
requirements or match the BASIX Certificate provided; and of having to
inform owners of some of their commitments, such as the use of fluoro
lighting in bedrooms. One Council employee commented:
“No one knows what they’re doing; they just plug in commitments just
to get the figures. They just look at the number [savings target], and just
plug in the commitments accordingly” (Sean, 13th October 2006).
The requirement for an amended BASIX Certificate for every amendment to
the plans during assessment also contributes to the complexity of the system
for owners and applicants. While this can be a minor annoyance in the case
of a single dwelling, it becomes a significant burden in the case of multi-unit
residential development. The time and financial implications of this are
discussed in 3.3(d); however this simply adds another layer of complexity to a
system which many home owners and applicants only deal with a small
number of times. The BASIX tool requests information that may require
complex calculations (such as conditioned and unconditioned floor area; or
roof area); and many owners and applicants do not appear to realise the
ramifications of their commitment choices, e.g., the potential difficulties of
acquiring the plants required for native or low-water use landscaping (Adam,
13th October 2006).
One Council employee interviewed believes the system should be simplified to
a realistic level for “mums and dads”, or alternative arrangements should be
considered – such as accreditation of BASIX assessors and providers (as
currently occurs for the NatHERS and ABSA thermal comfort certificates)
(Paul, 3rd October 2006).
51
c) The complexity of the system for assessment staff
The BASIX scheme’s creator, Bruce Taper, claimed at its inception and in
interviews since that time that BASIX would “streamline” the development
assessment process and “cut red tape” (McLaren 2005). This opinion has also
been expressed in NSW Parliament (Knowles 2004; Knowles 2005) and in the
media (Turk 2002), and has rarely been disputed in a public forum.
Personal experience and anecdotal evidence indicates that this is not the
case, with one Council employee suggesting that BASIX had increased the
total assessment time (from lodgement to final inspection) by an average of
50% (Adam, 13th October 2006). BASIX has required new and different
information to be submitted to Council; increased the time required for
provision of amended plans; has increased the time and difficulty of lodging a
development application; and has introduced “confusing” controls and
requirements (Adam, 13th October 2006). This has been particularly notable
with the use of the BASIX scheme for multi-unit residential, where a BASIX
Certificate can be “up to thirty five pages, possibly longer” (Paul, 3rd October
2006).
The introduction of BASIX has also raised new legal issues. For example, the
BASIX tool requires information such as the “number of bedrooms”, for the
purposes of calculating compliance. However, the BASIX scheme and
legislation do not define a bedroom. While this issue may seem minor,
repeated misinterpretation of this could have potential impacts on the savings
benefits of dwellings post-occupancy.
The greatest concern for Council and assessors appears to be when issuing
final Occupation Certificates. Situations have arisen across Sydney were
homeowners have not built to the BASIX commitments which formed a part
of their development consent. One dwelling in particular was built without
52
regard to any of the ancillary development required in the BASIX Certificate –
the applicant claimed that they were not aware of any BASIX Certificate, and
so the light and plumbing fittings were not compliant and a rainwater tank
was not installed. The incorrect water heating and storage had been installed
(Andrew, 3rd October 2006). While this is an extreme example, there are a
range of examples of dwellings which have been constructed with incorrect
fittings or fixtures, e.g., compact fluorescent lighting fixtures instead of
regular fluorescent fixtures. In this case, the principal certifying authority is
not legally able to provide an Occupation Certificate, even where this is the
only discrepancy with the plans. The applicant is required to submit an
application for modification to the development consent, or change the
fixtures/fittings. This is a significant time burden for Council staff, and adds
complexity to an already complex system. Certification can also be confusing
for some commitments, such as the need for “close-fitting blinds”. Council
staff have raised concerns about the practical definition of such fixtures, and
also raised concerns that blinds and other peripherals are being included as
commitments when they are highly portable and not generally required for an
Occupation Certificate.
Finally, complications arise when an amended development meets the
standards of the Council for a range of other issues, but does not have an
updated BASIX Certificate. This requires the consent authority to delay the
issue of development consent for the application, as the application cannot be
deferred for BASIX matters (Paul, 3rd October 2006). This matter has been
raised in the Land and Environment Court recently, with a Senior
Development Assessment Officer relating a story of a development application
which was assessed by the Court and considered acceptable, however could
not be approved as it did not have an appropriate BASIX Certificate. This
decision on this case has not yet been handed down by the Court (Paul, 3rd
October 2006).
53
d) The cost and time burden
A common concern raised by those interviewed was the time and cost burden
of BASIX on assessment staff and applicants. In the case of single dwellings
and dual occupancy developments, BASIX added time and costs to developing
through the need for amended plans and for the added time and cost of
mandatory inspections. For larger developments, including mixed use and
multi-unit residential development, amended BASIX Certificates can be an
especially large cost and time burden. This is particularly the case where a
consultant or architect is completing BASIX Certificate work and
accompanying thermal comfort assessment work, which would be an extra
time and cost burden on the owner (Adam, 13th October 2006; Paul, 3rd
October 2006).
e) Lack of support from NSW Government
The BASIX scheme was developed by and is managed by the NSW
Government, with offices and staff at the Department of Planning. In
addition to research and development, these staff members provide feedback
and support to the public and Council staff through a toll free phone number,
email and training sessions (BASIX 2006).
While responses are “prompt” and “generally helpful”, it is evident that the
Council staff interviewed are frustrated that the BASIX staff do not deal with
the day-to-day problems in the system and don’t realise that many problems
with BASIX are being dealt with by Council staff (Paul, 3rd October 2006).
Minor but common issues with definitions and requirements are not always
met with consistent replies, and some Council staff believe that BASIX staff
just “… don’t have an appreciation of those things” (Adam, 13th October
2006; Paul, 3rd October 2006).
54
There is also generally a feeling that the State Government has ‘passed the
buck’ on the issue of building sustainability. The State Government took
responsibility for developing the scheme and the tools, and undertook
community and stakeholder consultation. However, responsibility for the
assessment and inspections was delegated to local government and the
additional obligations were not matched with additional staff or funding
(Andrew, 3rd October 2006). The obligation for assessment staff to check
every BASIX Certificate, including up to thirty-five page certificates is “not
fair”, and an unrealistic obligation (Paul, 3rd October 2006).
f) Lack of consistency between Councils
Approaches to dealing with the BASIX requirements have varied from Council
to Council, but also individually within a Council. As a result, applicants can
find the system confusing, and be unsure of what is required for completing
an application. This also has implications for private certifiers, as it is likely
that they have varying criteria and standards, and are involved in the
development assessment process.
The issue of personal diligence was raised, as the success of the BASIX
scheme rests on the diligence of assessment staff. Several Council staff
commented that not all assessment staff had the same expectations and
commitment to BASIX, and that in many cases it was “easier to ignore it”
(Paul, 3rd October 2006), especially when it was expected that there would be
a range of issues which would complicate the assessment.
55
3.4 Problems with BASIX
The problems with BASIX that are raised in this chapter are neither fatal flaws
in the system nor are they incapable of being addressed. All policies,
especially those dealing with scientific uncertainties such as ‘sustainability’,
must undergo a transition period. Problems identified here have been raised
by local government and ex-local government staff. This is neither an
exhaustive list of the problems encountered in the development assessment
process, nor does it claim to represent the views of all individuals in local
government.
56
FOUR: ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM
This chapter addresses the concerns raised in Chapter Three and makes
recommendations which are practical and considerate of maintaining the
general structures in place for development assessment and government in
NSW.
57
4.1 Introduction
Identifying problems which are raised with BASIX through the development
assessment process is only half the picture. This chapter makes
recommendations for dealing with the policy; the development assessment
process; and the concept and the law, as follows:
Monitor the policy;
Review exempt and complying development controls;
Introduce accredited BASIX certifiers;
Reconsider the use of appliances and temporary fixtures in the BASIX
scheme;
Reconsider the requirement for an amended BASIX Certificate for every
amendment to an application;
Increase resources and staff for BASIX compliance;
Expand the BASIX scheme;
Introduce new regulations for inefficient fixtures and appliances; and
Develop and undertake an education program.
58
4.2 The policy cycle
All policy goes through a cycle of stages, from development to
implementation, then to monitoring and evaluation of the policy (Dovers
2005). BASIX is now at the monitoring and evaluation stages of the policy
cycle.
a) Monitor the policy
According to Dovers (2005), monitoring the performance of policy and
evaluating policy play an integral role in ensuring its success. Due to the
complex relationships between cause and effect, and dealing with a wide
range of scientific uncertainties, environmental and sustainability policy can
be difficult to monitor and evaluate (Dovers 2005). Monitoring and evaluation
of the BASIX scheme in regards to the effect on natural resource consumption
may be too difficult at this early stage. However, administrative evaluation
could now be undertaken.
Research should now be conducted which includes a full range of
stakeholders in the BASIX scheme (including members of the public;
members of the development and building industries; and members of the
‘sustainable technology’ industry), to examine the scheme in the development
assessment process.
Research into the success of post-occupancy BASIX dwellings should also be
undertaken. Dwellings from geographically diverse areas should be examined
to determine whether commitments have been maintained and whether
lifestyle choices have been affected. Dwellings designed by a range of
professionals and draftsmen should be considered – from architecturally
designed houses to project homes. BASIX was not designed to consider the
post-occupancy performance of a dwelling, but without determining whether
59
the BASIX scheme is improving the performance of a dwelling, progress
towards sustainability will not be achieved.
60
4.3 Improving BASIX in the DA process
The development assessment process and administration of the BASIX
scheme is arguably the area which would benefit most from minor changes.
The options presented here have the potential to make the BASIX scheme
more effective, however they would require further research and feasibility
studies.
a) Review exempt and complying development controls
If the NSW Government is committed to ensuring that the introduction of the
BASIX scheme results in perceptible reductions in the consumption of natural
resources and fossil fuels, then it must reconsider exempt and complying
development controls across the State, do research and resource local
government. Conflicts in the system should be assessed on their ability to
undermine the potential savings made in the design stages of development.
Speed and efficiency in the development assessment process may need to be
weighed up against meeting environmental targets.
Certain types of ancillary development could be removed from exempt and
complying controls, such as air conditioning units and new roofing. The
implications of changing exempt and complying controls would need to be
assessed, with the potential for greater time and resource requirements for
development assessment in local government. If a review was undertaken in
the short term future, any changes to the requirements could be implemented
through the NSW Government’s proposed Local Environmental Plan template,
which would be applied State-wide.
61
b) Introduce accredited BASIX certifiers
During stakeholder consultation, local government representatives requested
that the BASIX scheme be maintained by BASIX certifiers (Eckstein & Palese
2004). This request was not fulfilled in revision of the BASIX scheme before
its implementation and has not occurred since. The NSW Government has
designed the BASIX scheme so that BASIX Certificates may be produced by
any member of the public and believes the tool is simple to use (McLaren
2005).
Introducing certifiers into the BASIX scheme would give an individual in the
development assessment process the responsibility of ensuring that efficiency
targets are met and that the plans to be submitted for assessment match the
BASIX Certificate. BASIX certifiers would have a responsibility to the
homeowner and to the development assessment staff for ensuring that
accurate information was being submitted. It is envisaged that a BASIX
certifier would require training with the software and requirements for
development applications and construction certificates on a State-wide level.
The training and accreditation of BASIX certifiers could be a process to be
considered by the new Building Professionals Board, which will have the
responsibility of accrediting private certifiers in the building process (BPB
2006).
The introduction of BASIX certifiers need not remove the ability of the
homeowner to produce their own BASIX Certificate and choose their
commitments. Owners could produce a BASIX Certificate and have necessary
changes made to the plans before submitting them to a BASIX certifier.
This change could potentially speed up Council approvals, removing the need
for Council staff to check the BASIX Certificates of every application,
particularly multi-unit residential development. While certification may
increase the cost of preparing a development application or complying
62
development certificate to submit to Council, improving the development
assessment process would have other financial or time benefits for applicants.
There is little difference between paying an accredited certifier for BASIX
certification, and paying a certifier for a thermal comfort assessment - a
process which has been occurring in NSW development assessment since the
introduction of minimum energy performance standards.
A potential issue which may arise due to the introduction of accreditation for
BASIX certifiers is the disengagement of local government staff from the
environmental or efficiency features of development. This trend was
occurring across NSW Councils when an energy smart policy had been
developed, and NatHERS or ABSA energy efficiency certificates were being
submitted as part of a development application (PlanningNSW 2002).
Regular performance reviews in relation to BASIX Certificates and
developments may reduce the potential for disengagement.
c) Reconsider the use of appliances and temporary fixtures in the BASIX
scheme
Fittings and fixtures are commonly selected to meet BASIX targets, including
rainwater tanks, solar hot water systems, high performance plumbing fixtures
and low energy use light fittings. Design considerations such as cross
ventilation and orientation are also important. However, the BASIX scheme
allows applicants to select appliances and ‘temporary’ fixtures such as indoor
blinds.
When developing the BASIX scheme, PlanningNSW (Department of Planning)
was aware of the potential for the undermining of environmental features in
the post-occupancy period (PlanningNSW 2002). Now that the post-
occupancy ‘upgrades’ are occurring, reconsideration of the benefits of
including appliances and temporary fixtures should occur. This could be
63
revised in tandem with the changes to law and regulation considered in
section 4.4(b).
d) Reconsider the requirement for an amended BASIX Certificate for every
amendment to an application
The BASIX legislation currently requires an amended BASIX Certificate for
every amendment to the development application plans for a dwelling or
residential development. This is perceived to add time and costs to the
development, through delays and professional consultation (see Chapter 3).
The legislation could be amended to allow an applicant to submit an original
BASIX Certificate at the time of lodging a development application and an
amended BASIX Certificate after the applicant’s final amendments are made
to the plans. This allows an applicant to meet the requirements of Section
79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and
satisfy any Council concerns without providing a new BASIX Certificate at
each minor amendment.
Cases arise now, and will continue to arise, where conditions imposed on a
development as part of the consent will impact on the ability of the
development to meet BASIX targets. In these cases deferred commencement
could be allowed, to grant consent following the submission of plans which
satisfy the conditions of consent and BASIX requirements.
This amendment could potentially be perceived as reducing the BASIX
Certificate’s role in the design of a building. While this is true, energy
efficient design features would be required for an original BASIX Certificate.
Consideration would need to be given as to whether proposed conditions of
consent would have a bearing of such magnitude on the ability of the
64
proposed development to meet BASIX targets to warrant the consent not
operating.
e) Increase resources and staff for BASIX compliance
If changes to the BASIX scheme to simplify the process are not implemented,
then the NSW Government should take responsibility for ensuring that local
government is adequately funded and resourced for carrying out BASIX
assessment and inspections. The BASIX scheme has increased time and
workloads for staff in the development assessment process. NSW
Government assistance was requested by local government prior to the
implementation of BASIX, but this has not occurred (Eckstein & Palese 2004).
The NSW Government could improve the situation by providing and training
specialist BASIX staff at Councils with a high volume of residential
development; or by taking responsibility for ensuring BASIX compliance by
carrying out inspections on properties across the State.
65
4.4 The Concept and Law
These recommendations deal with issues outside the scope of the
development assessment process, but are related to BASIX and its role in
progressing towards sustainability.
a) Expand the BASIX scheme
There is potential for the BASIX scheme to be expanded, and to be a more
accurate measure of whether a single development is sustainable, or indeed,
whether development more generally, is sustainable. This has been raised as
a possibility during the early development of BASIX, but has not been
mentioned over the past two years (Eckstein & Palese 2004). Expanding the
BASIX tool to consider other measures of sustainability would require
significant commitment from the NSW Government, and may require the
design of a new development assessment process rather than simply a tool.
Research would be required into the feasibility of such a project, and would
need to consider whether expanding the tool would have the potential to
improve the environmental and social impacts of development, and the effect
this would have on economic sustainability and principles. The expansion of
the BASIX scheme into other measures of sustainability is important because
a significant amount of home fossil fuel consumption relates to transportation
and other lifestyle choices which BASIX does not currently gauge (Ha 2004).
When the draft BASIX was being discussed in partnership with local
government groups, PlanningNSW commented in their report that “[t]he
transport section of BASIX provides possibly the biggest potential
sustainability gain of the whole index” (PlanningNSW 2002: 10). Despite this,
transport is not yet a component of the BASIX scheme.
66
As a minimum, the BASIX scheme could be expanded to include distance-to
functions through geographical information systems for new release areas –
i.e., based on a home address, have the tool calculate the minimum distances
to local shops, the nearest primary or high school and the nearest doctor’s
surgery for example, and those who live further than a certain amount be
required to make additional energy savings. Ideally this would result in the
better design of new release areas, with greater walk-ability and a lower
reliance on private transportation. However, this has implications for
affordability and equality, as it favours development in the established urban
area. This issue should be considered further, as it complements the NSW
Government’s preference for urban consolidation and greater development
along transport and employment corridors.
This author believes that for BASIX to continue to have a meaningful future, it
should be expanded to include other factors of sustainability or sustainable
development. Whether this is possible is another issue, with the pressure
placed on the Government from the development industry in particular. A
tool which assesses the sustainability of releasing new urban release areas
and finds them to be unsustainable would not be supported in an
environment where money is the most important factor. The development
industry has demonstrated that it has strong pull over the NSW Government,
with the delay of the release of the BASIX tool for multi-unit residential
dwellings in 2005 and media coverage in 2006 that suggests that the
expansion of the program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 25% to
40% below average may not occur (Australian Associated Press 8 June 2006).
b) Introduce new regulations for inefficient fixtures and appliances
Appliances, fixtures and fittings are available for sale in New South Wales
which are inefficient or are consumptive of natural resources. In justifying
the inclusion of appliances in the BASIX scheme, PlanningNSW said,
67
“Inclusion of appliances within BASIX, given their significant influence
on residential water and energy consumption, seems reasonable until the
Building Code of Australia or another mechanism entrenches national uptake
of better performing appliances” (PlanningNSW 2002: 11).
Increasing the minimum requirements for appliances, fixtures and fittings is
not necessarily a responsibility for the Australian Building Codes Board - the
NSW Government can prohibit the sale of certain products. This would not be
a groundbreaking legislation – every State in Australia except NSW has made
dual flush toilets compulsory in new buildings (Powerhouse Museum 2006).
This legislation would remove the cheaper and inefficient models from the
market, and reduce the choice to the more environmentally responsible
options.
c) Develop and undertake an education program
Successful policy must be complemented by a range of other initiatives and
this is recognised by Scott and Smith (2006), who comment that while BASIX
is “… a step in the right direction, attempts to change the environmental
degradation resulting from urban development will be futile unless
commitment to change occurs on a large scale, that is, at the grass roots
level as well as from top down” (227). This is a common theme in academic
literature about environment and sustainability policy – it requires a range of
initiatives at all levels of government and in the community.
Changing lifestyles and choices in the community is equally, if not as
important, as ensuring that residential development is more sustainable. The
NSW Government needs greater commitment to sustainable development and
to meeting the challenges of sustainability in all departments and ministries.
The proposed State Plan should openly recognising the challenges to the
68
government and to the community which will be faced over the coming
decades, and address the issues of sustainability.
Educating the community about sustainable development and natural
resource use will improve the expected benefits of BASIX compliant
development. Newman recognises the need for education, commenting:
“Such innovation in ecological building will only work if people also
actually use such buildings with an ecologically sensitive mind-set. If
householders abuse their new energy efficient homes they can still
have excessive energy consumption … People will need educational
assistance to embed a conserver lifestyle. Such assistance can be
provided and there is evidence that with targeted programs such
changes can be made for long-term gains” (2005: 125-126).
69
CONCLUSION
70
Conclusion
The objectives of this thesis are to:
Explain the context for the policy and legislative introduction of BASIX.
Explore the issues raised by the implementation of BASIX through the
development assessment process.
Provide recommendations for the future use of the BASIX tool within
the context of NSW public policy and progressing toward sustainability.
Chapter One explained the context for sustainability policy generally – due to
the rising number of and increasingly urgent concerns about the state of the
environment and climate change. The context of BASIX was further narrowed
to the specific environment in NSW, with the success of the ‘green’ Olympic
Games and the boom in the residential building industry.
Chapter Two described the way which BASIX is implemented through the
development assessment process in NSW. Chapter Three explored the issues
raised by local government and ex-local government staff in relation to the
implementation of BASIX and its function in the development assessment
process. These issues ranged from legislative to administrative issues.
Chapter Four provided recommendations for the future use of the BASIX tool
and included changes to legislation, administrative processes and the breadth
of the scheme.
71
Where to for BASIX?
The NSW Government took on responsibility for sustainable residential
development through the development and implementation of BASIX. The
NSW Government now has the responsibility of ensuring that BASIX is
monitored, evaluated and amended as any policy should.
BASIX has a legislated role in the development assessment process and is
dealt with by local government for a majority of its use. Problems with BASIX
through the development assessment process are likely to be encountered by
local government staff, which is why this research has focused on this group
of stakeholders. The NSW Government should commit to improving relations
with local government, and improve opportunities for feedback. Research
and development of BASIX and other development assessment initiatives
must include local government for all stages through the policy cycle, not
simply the development and design of policy.
BASIX has the potential to continue breaking ground worldwide in
sustainability rating tools. It has taken on an important role in statutory
planning and in building design, but can extend this influence to strategic
planning and neighbourhood design. BASIX can move beyond residential
buildings and assess other types of developments, and assess lifecycle
sustainability for certain developments. This has the potential to make the
BASIX scheme and the NSW Government leaders in the international
sustainability challenge.
72
Progressing towards sustainability
This thesis has examined BASIX within the context of NSW public policy and
sustainability policy. A major issue with the use of policy as a means of
progressing towards sustainability is that often good policies are developed
but their implementation is not monitored adequately, nor are they flexible
enough to deal with a range of possibilities such as new scientific knowledge.
Dovers believes that monitoring is crucial in relation to sustainability, and
must be “… consistent with a precautionary and adaptive policy style” (2005:
78).
Experience would suggest that policy as a standalone response will not
necessary result in progress towards sustainability. Governments and non-
government organisations have invested time and money in education and
infrastructure to promote ideas and concepts of sustainability. This approach
can include education about legislation and policy, a concept which is
supported by McManus (2005).
There is support amongst most authors that grassroots and community
support is required to work towards sustainability and that policy cannot be
the single mechanism used (Smith & Scott 2006; Dovers 2005) .
Institutional change is commonly cited as a recommendation for dealing with
sustainability, often due to the difficulties in defining sustainability and setting
objectives for all parties (Scott & Smith 2006; McManus 2005). This can
involve changing the structure or portfolios in a government or organisation
to ensure that sustainability is a key concern (McManus 2005), or the creation
of entirely different structures of government (Dovers 2005). Factors in
implementing successful institutional change includes “… the quality of
leadership that is available, and the support and involvement of many people
who are educated to recognise, address and respond to sustainability
challenges” (McManus 2005: 192). It may also include the appointment of a
73
“Commissioner” of sustainability or a Council for Sustainability, who make
decisions independently and report back to governments and organisations
(Dovers 2005).
It must also be recognised that sustainability is “… a higher order social goal
and represents a generational-scale challenge” (Dovers 2005: 75). If the
NSW Government, and more importantly, the NSW public, is committed to
progressing towards sustainability, reliance on residential sustainability policy
is going to be too little, too late. Progressing towards sustainability will
ultimately require commitment from all levels of government and in all facets
of public life, and must look beyond scientific uncertainty and political tension.
74
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BASIX, 2006 BASIX – Building Sustainability Index, accessed 20th September
2006, [www.basix.nsw.gov.au]
BASIX, 2006a ‘BASIX Fact Sheet’, BASIX – Building Sustainability Index,
accessed 3rd September 2006,
[http://sustainability.nsw.gov.au/information/common/pdf/basix_fact_sheet.p
df]
BASIX (n.d.) BASIX in the development approval process in NSW, no
publishing details
‘BASIX energy savings watered down by govt’, Australian Associated Press, 8th
June 2006
Blakely, E. & Yip, E., 2006 ‘The core of sustainability – housing sustainability
policies: the case of sustainable housing policies in Australian States’ in
University of Sydney (eds), Dialogues in Urban Planning, The Planning
Research Centre: University of Sydney, Sydney
Beer, A., Maude, A. & Pritchard, B. 2003 Developing Australia’s regions: theory and practice, UNSW Press, Sydney
Building Professionals Board, 2006 Building Professionals Board – BPB,
accessed 2nd November 2006, [www.bpb.nsw.gov.au]
Daly, M., 2001 ‘The challenges for local government in the 21st century’, in Pritchard, B. and McManus, P. (eds), Land of Discontent: The Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney
75
Davies, A. & Noonan, G., 2004 ‘A lot of hot air’, The Sydney Morning Herald,
20th November 2004, p34
Department Of Planning, 2005 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, DOP, Sydney
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, 2004 BASIX
[pamphlet], DIPNR, Sydney
Dovers, S 2005 Environment and sustainability policy, The Federation Press,
Sydney
Dovers, S. and Wild River, S., 2002 Institutions for Sustainable Development, paper presented to International Local Agenda 21 Conference, Sustaining Our Cities
Eckstein, D. & Palese, B. 2004 ‘Delivering BASIX, the Building Sustainability
Index, to new home builders and other stakeholders in NSW’, Public
Administration Today, December – February 2003-2004, pp 27-32
Eckstein, D & Palese, B. 2006 ‘A history of BASIX, the Building Sustainability
Index, in NSW’, BASIX – The Building Sustainability Index, 10th August 2006,
[http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/information/common/pdf/basixhistory.pdf]
Elliot, L., 2004 Global Politics of the Environment, 2nd Ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Farrier, D. & Stein, P. 2006 The environmental law handbook, 4th edition,
Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney
Goldie, J., Douglas, B. & Furnass, B. 2005 ‘An urgent need to change
direction’, in Goldie, J., Douglas, B. & Furnass, B. (eds), In Search of
Sustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood
76
Green Building Council Australia, 2006 The dollars and sense of green
buildings 2006, Green Building Council Australia, Sydney
Greenpeace International 2006 Greenpeace International, accessed 2nd June 2006, [www.greenpeace.org]
Ha, T. 2003 Greeniology: how to live well, be green and make a difference,
Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest
Hockings, B. 2003 ‘Submission’, Inquiry into Residential Energy Consumption,
PlanningNSW, Sydney
Hurstville Council, 2006 Welcome to Hurstville City Council, accessed 10th
October 2006, [www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au]
Kogarah Council, 2006 Kogarah Council, accessed 24th September 2006,
[www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au]
Knowles, C. 2005 ‘Questions in Parliament’, NSW Legislative Assembly
Hansard, 26th October 2004, p9
Knowles, C. 2004 ‘Legislative Assembly’s Q+A Paper 116’, 23rd February 2005
Lowe, I. 2005 ‘Achieving a sustainable future’, in Goldie, J., Douglas, B. &
Furnass, B. (eds), In Search of Sustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood
Lowe, I. 2005a A big fix: radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis,
Schwartz Publishing, Melbourne
McLaren, W. 2005 ‘Getting back to BASIX’, Environ Magazine, Summer 2005,
pp 14-16
77
McManus, P. 2005 Vortex cities to sustainable cities: Australia’s urban
challenge, UNSW Press, Sydney
Meadowcroft, J. 2000 ‘Sustainable development: a new(ish) idea for a new
century’, in Dryzek, J. & Schlosberg, D. (eds), Debating the Earth: The
Environmental Politics Reader, Second Edition, Oxford University Press: New
York
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., Alexander, L., 2000 In-depth
interviewing, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney
Moriarty, P. 2002 ‘Environmental sustainability of large Australian cities’,
Urban Policy and Research, vol. 20, no. 3, pp 233-244
Newman, P. 2005 ‘Urban design and transport’, in Goldie, J., Douglas, B. &
Furnass, B. (eds), In Search of Sustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood
Newman, P. no date ‘Sustainability assessment and urban systems’
NSW Premier’s Department 2006 A new direction for NSW: State plan, draft
for consultation, 22nd August 2006, [www.nsw.gov.au/stateplan]
Pitts, A. 2004 Planning and design strategies for sustainability and profit:
pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales, Architectural
Press, Oxford
Planning Institute of Australia, 2006 home – Planning Institute of Australia,
accessed 18th October 2006, [www.planning.org.au]
Planning Institute of Australia, 2002 Code of Professional Conduct, Planning
Institute of Australia, Canberra
78
PlanningNSW, 2002 Partnering BASIX with Local Government: A Report –
October 2002, Department of Planning, Sydney
Powerhouse Museum, 2006 Australia Innovates – Powerhouse Museum, 30th
October 2006,
[www.powerhousemuseum.com/australia_innovates/?behaviour=view_article
&Section_id=1040&article_id=10044]
Smith, G. & Scott, J. 2006 Living cities: an urban myth? Rosenburg, Dural
Suzuki, D. 2003 ‘Owning up to our ignorance’, A David Suzuki collection: a
lifetime of ideas, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest
Total Environment Centre, 2006, Government report reveals failure on
transport and air pollution, 30th October 2006,
[http://www.tec.org.au/dev/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4
90&Itemid=279]
Turk, L., 2002 ‘Easy way to better housing’, Illawarra Mecury, 4th December
2002, p 41
UTS et al (1998) Approvals 98, Guide to the new legislation and associated
changes
Walsh, K., 2006 ‘Water referendum a dry proposal’ in Sydney Morning Herald, 4th June 2006
Yencken, D. & Wilkinson, D. 2000 Resetting the compass: Australia’s journey
towards sustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood