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