<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-5" data-turn="user" data-turn-id="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" data-turn-id-container="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" dir="auto">Time &amp; Place’s plans to transform the former David Jones factory building in Surry Hills into a mixed-use residential precinct have gone on exhibition through the NSW Government’s In-fill Affordable Housing pathway.</section>

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" dir="auto">
The Marlborough House proposal, lodged for the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/marlborough-house-47-97-marlborough-street-surry-hills-nsw-2010">47-97 Marlborough Street</a> site, would see the adaptive reuse of the heritage-listed warehouse building alongside the construction of new residential additions and a separate apartment building on the northern portion of the site.

The proposal seeks approval for 172 apartments across three buildings, including 15 per cent affordable housing managed by a community housing provider for at least 15 years from occupation.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5d1d3c2a-bf13-47d6-a335-7c01102cdee1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.36%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=cjMYrbR.BLUlWH4dar0RVDDo0bG.u2YT" />

Interior view from the Northern Building Penthouse overlooking the park

&nbsp;

The redevelopment is planned for the prominent 3,413 sqm site bounded by Marlborough Street, Goodlet Street and Lansdowne Street, directly opposite Eddie Ward Park and around 200 metres from the Surry Hills light rail stop.

Time &amp; Place acquired the former David Jones building in 2024, marking the first time the property had changed hands in around 50 years.

Designed by Wardle, the proposal centres around the adaptive reuse of the former David Jones factory, originally constructed between 1913 and 1935 in the Inter-War Chicagoesque architectural style.

Wardle noted in its Architectural Design Report that the building “occupies a significant place in the industrial and cultural history of Surry Hills” and at its peak was “the largest department store manufacturing facility in Australia, employing over 800 people and fuelling the growth of Sydney’s fashion and retail industries.”

The practice said the project positions itself “not as an isolated intervention, but as a contributor to the civic, social, and architectural grain of the precinct.”

The proposal would deliver 75 apartments within the retained southern heritage building, 59 apartments within the central addition, and a further 38 apartments within the new northern building fronting Lansdowne Street.

Planning documents show the scheme would comprise a mix of heritage apartments, new-build apartments, townhouses and penthouses.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="57758518-40a3-4b83-958c-d06e96a2cffa" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.42%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=VerlX9ST5xgBi8.1_YRsqdWTJeT6ygjs" />Interior View of the Heritage Building Apartment

The development would also include a ground-floor retail tenancy on the corner of Marlborough and Lansdowne streets, rooftop communal open space, a landscaped pedestrian link along the western edge of the site, and basement parking accessed from Lansdowne Street via a car stacker system.

&nbsp;

The scheme emerged from a competitive design process run by Urbis, with Wardle ultimately selected as the winning architect ahead of FJC Studio, TZG, Architectus and Wilkinson Eyre.

The Design Integrity Panel later described several aspects of the Wardle scheme as fundamental to the project, including “the stepped character of the new addition to the north of the site”, the landscaped western pedestrian link, and the “garden arrival” experience separating the original Marlborough House from the heritage addition.

Wardle’s design heavily references the site’s industrial and heritage history, while also responding to the surrounding Surry Hills streetscape.

The Architectural Design Report describes Surry Hills as “a finely grained neighbourhood with beautiful and expressive brickworks throughout the suburb,” with the proposal introducing a material palette intended to sit comfortably alongside the existing warehouse fabric and neighbouring terraces.

The report also outlines the project’s relationship with Eddie Ward Park and the broader landscape context of the area.

“Marlborough House occupies a site of deep cultural memory and the neighbouring Eddie Ward Park is of local ecological significance, where natural systems, topography, and stories have long shaped human experience,” Wardle noted in the report.

The architects said the proposal sought to “rebind built form to Country” through landscape, materiality and the adaptive reuse of the heritage structure.

<img alt="Marlborough House" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9ae3f2f9-c85f-477a-a6f8-b43f6cb97c41" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.53%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=B.qUCLqRvJOR.n9CvYcTpaknIX9LuqKZ" />

The project is also being progressed under the NSW Government’s in-fill affordable housing provisions, allowing developments that include affordable housing to access additional height and floor space incentives.

Under the plans, 2,593 sqm of the project’s floor space would be dedicated to affordable housing, slightly exceeding the required 15 per cent threshold.

In its Design Excellence Strategy, Urbis said the project aimed to “sensitively adapt and enhance the heritage-listed building on site through alterations and additions that preserve its historical significance” while delivering “high-quality market and infill affordable housing development in Surry Hills.”

Time &amp; Place has been one of the most active developers nationally in the last 12 to 24 months. Late last year they completed&nbsp;The Queensbridge in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/southbank-vic-3006">Southbank</a>, a mixed-use tower with 353 apartments and a hotel. They are currently selling Park Modern, 246 apartments near the famous Botanic Gardens in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/south-melbourne-vic-3205">South Melbourne</a>, and have future projects, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-wilmot-173-burke-road-28-hope-street-glen-iris-vic-3146">The Wilmot</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/glen-iris-vic-3146">Glen Iris</a>, the redevelopment of the Northcote Plaza, and another tower in South Melbourne.

The developer broke into Sydney just a few years ago with Two Tides in Manly. They have another project nearby, which is at the ultra-luxury end of the market on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/shoreline-manly-beach-89-90-north-steyne-manly">North Steyne</a>, fronting the beach.

It is also continuing to work through the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-time-place-settles-on-design-for-the-chimes-potts-point-redevelopment">redevelopment of The Chimes building</a> on Macleay Street in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/potts-point-nsw-2011">Potts Point</a>, as well as a project on <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/time-place-to-take-on-mosman-apartment-market">Mosman's Redan Street</a>.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Time & Place unveils Marlborough House redevelopment designs for former David Jones warehouse in Surry Hills

The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

Environment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Late on Wednesday night the so-called “brumby bill” was passed without amendment in the New South Wales Parliament. The controversial Coalition bill, supported by the Christian Democrats and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, means that feral horses must be kept in Kosciuszko National Park.
It also creates a community advisory panel, with no scientific experts appointed, to advise the minister on how to manage the horse population in the alpine ecosystem.
The NSW government has attracted accusations of a conflict of interest. Former Nationals member Peter Cochran, who now runs a commercial venture offering brumbie-spotting rides through the National Park (and who has donated extensively to Deputy Premier John Barilaro) reportedly commissioned lawyers to draft the bill. Peter Cochran, John Barilaro and Gladys Berejiklian have denied all accusations of conflict of interest and underhanded conduct.
The bill has also been criticised by scientific bodies. In a letter to NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian this week, the Australian Academy of Science noted that the legislation removes consideration of scientific advice, and called for the bill to be withdrawn or substantially amended.
In a rare move, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has also written to the NSW government, expressing concern over the potential degradation of this internationally significant national park.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222112/original/file-20180607-137285-1izt88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Damage caused by feral horses in the Australian alps. D Thompson and Stuart Rowland, Friends of Currango/Flickr
Out of step with other states
The NSW Labor Party does not support the bill and has pledged to repeal the legislation if elected next March. The legislation represents a radical change in NSW’s management of feral horses, coming after a 2016 draft strategy that recommenced reducing their population by 90% over 20 years.
NSW now stands in contrast to other Australian states. Last Saturday, Victoria launched its Feral Horse Strategic Action Plan. That plan aims to protect native species and ecosystems in national parks by removing or controlling feral horses and is a welcome step in the right direction. Victorian environment minister Lily D’Ambrosio called on the NSW and federal governments to support a unified approach to feral horse management in Australia’s alpine regions.
Is culling in or out?
The Victorian plan excludes aerial culling but will revisit horse control methods if the proposed trapping methods don’t reduce environmental impacts. Aerial culling is widely practised throughout Australia, including Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland (where culling was used to improve road safety), and the Australian Capital Territory, which borders Kosciuszko National Park.
Barilaro argued against aerial culling when he presented the Brumby bill to parliament, calling it cruel and barbaric. He reiterated that the bill is meant to prevent lethal control in his response to Victoria’s announcement. But surprisingly, the draft legislation makes no mention of control methods, lethal or otherwise.
The deputy premier also referred to the Guy Fawkes National Park horse cull in northern NSW in 2000 to support his argument against aerial culling. But an independent enquiry found that the cull was an appropriate humane response to the situation, where horses were starving to death and causing environmental damage after a fire. The RSPCA and independent reports show that aerial culling is an acceptable and humane way to manage horse numbers.
Further, the brumby bill now locks in the predictable outcome that thousands of horses are likely to starve to death in the next drought or after large fires. It is therefore puzzling that actions likely to increase horse suffering are not of great concern to many within the pro-brumby lobby.
Greater emphasis, instead, has been put on a cultural argument for protecting feral horses: for example, by claiming that feral horses made enormous contributions to Australia’s World War One effort. However, the cultural heritage report prepared for the NSW National Parks Service says “there is no definitive evidence that remount horses were directly taken from the brumby population of what is now Kosciusko National Park”.
The Sydney Olympics opening ceremony was also offered as evidence that brumbies are integral to Australian culture. However, Australian Stock horses, not brumbies, were showcased at the Sydney Olympics – a distinct breed, established by horse enthusiasts in the 1970s.
That said, it is true that horses in the snowy mountains do have local cultural value. But so too does the native fauna and flora threatened by feral horses, many of which only occur in Australia’s high country. This includes species such as the southern corroboree frog, alpine she-oak skink, broad-toothed rat, Raleigh sedge and mauve burr-daisy.
Can we compromise?
Is a compromise possible, in which both cultural and conservation goals can be accommodated? We think so. The feral horse population can be removed from the national parks and sensitive ecosystems. Brumby herds can thrive on extensive private property in the region, an approach already proven in South Australia’s Coffin Bay National Park.
The brumby bill was written and presented to parliament by groups with at best a perceived conflict of interest, and promoted by using inaccurate information about culling and heritage. It has been roundly criticised by leading national and international scientific bodies for not taking adequate account of science and the key role of national parks in conserving biodiversity.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97920/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">That this bill has now passed the NSW upper house is a further backward step for conservation goals and Australia’s international reputation for environmental protection, and sets a dangerous precedent by undermining prominent national and state environmental policy. It remains to be seen how this legislation aligns with the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, given that it literally tramples over several matters of national environmental significance.
Don Driscoll, Professor in Terrestrial Ecology, Deakin University
Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life &amp; Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
Tim Doherty, Research Fellow, Deakin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/passing-the-brumby-bill-is-a-backward-step-for-environmental-protection-in-australia-97920">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Passing the brumby bill is a backward step for environmental protection in Australia

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Recent king tides have again caused significant damage to coastal assets in Australia and New Zealand. This time the combination of large tides and coastal storms damaged properties on Torres Strait islands and in Nelson and other coastal areas of New Zealand. It is increasingly recognised worldwide that, despite many coastal adaptation plans being developed, the implementation of these plans is lagging.
King tides occur several times a year when the Moon is slightly closer to the Earth (so they’re sometimes called perigean spring tides). This means king tides are predictable, as are rising sea levels. The combination, along with sporadic storm events, will lead to increasing flooding of our coastal cities.
Higher sea levels, whether creeping (associated with anthropogenic climate change) or transient (episodic storm events), have impacts on both private and public property and assets. What is now mostly nuisance flooding will become more problematic, and the ever-increasing global damage bill from disaster will continue to mount.
According to the global re-insurer Munich Re, losses from natural disasters in 2017 totalled US$330 billion, the second highest on record. Almost half of these losses (41%) were uninsured.
Who’s responsible for adaptation plans?
In keeping with the theory that risk is best managed by those closest to the risk, local government in Australia is the level of government best suited to managing such local risks. In response to the increasing threat from rising sea levels, many local government councils around Australia have developed coastal climate adaptation plans.
Federal and state governments clearly also have roles to play in managing coastal inundation. The federal government is often the insurer of last resort, especially for public infrastructure.
In Queensland, the state government has implemented the successful QCoast2100 program. This is helping local governments to develop adaptation plans all along the state’s coastline.
It is increasingly recognised that many of the plans developed in the past contain overcomplicated analyses of oversimplified adaptation options. Instead, we need less complicated ways of determining the most suitable adaptation option and assessments that consider more tailored and considered options, which will then be more readily implementable.
What are the options?
Coastal climate adaptation options tend to fall into one of three categories:
<ul>
<li>retreat – relocate assets and structures inland or to higher ground</li>
<li>protect – mostly by building engineered seawalls, although green infrastructure can also be implemented</li>
<li>accommodate – live with the hazard but reduce the vulnerability of structures and assets.</li>
</ul>
Retreat makes intuitive sense: relocating assets out of harm’s way reduces their vulnerability. However, this approach has proved politically problematic, especially for private buildings.
Most communities are familiar with seawalls and other forms of coastal protection. Others fundamentally disagree with the principle of hard coastal protection measures.
The third adaptation option, accommodating sea-level rise, is becoming the most popular approach in many nations, including the low-lying Netherlands. However, this approach is probably the least understood in Australia and rarely appears as the preferred option in Australian coastal adaptation plans.
This option includes making existing structures less vulnerable. This might involve relocating electrical and air-conditioning services and switchboards higher in existing buildings. Over time, vulnerable sites can be repurposed with less vulnerable land uses and structures.
This is different from pre-emptively evicting and relocating entire communities from vulnerable locations – the retreat option. The retreat option is most easily implemented immediately after major flooding that has led to significant damage.
Plans must consider the politics
Early coastal adaptation plans commonly advocated mass pre-emptive coastal retreat, but local government often ended up shelving or rejecting such recommendations. Instead, councils simply commissioned the construction of small local seawalls in areas at risk of erosion.
More developed and recent coastal adaptation plans consider finer spatial scales. What they still often don’t do is consider more sophisticated and politically informed adaptation options and approaches.
Hence adaptation planning is still often best characterised as the “plan and forget” approach. These plans typically lack monitoring and evaluation and a realistic implementation strategy.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91318/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Increased flooding of our coastline is inevitable and happening. Therefore, adaptation planning needs to consider more nuanced options that are likely to be more politically palatable and implementable.
Mark Gibbs, Director, Knowledge to Innovation; Chair, Green Cross Australia, Queensland University of Technology
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/king-tides-and-rising-seas-are-predictable-and-were-not-doing-enough-about-it-91318">original article</a>.
</body></html>

King tides and rising seas are predictable, and we're not doing enough about it: Mark Gibbs

<html><body>
What is something worth? How do you put a dollar value on something like a river, a forest or a reef? When one report announces that <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-economic-value-of-the-great-barrier-reef-its-priceless-80061" target="_blank">the Great Barrier Reef is worth A$56 billion</a>, and another that it’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-economic-value-of-the-great-barrier-reef-its-priceless-80061" target="_blank">effectively priceless</a>, what does it mean and can they be reconciled?
This contrast points to fundamentally different notions of value. Environmental accounting is a way of recognising and comparing multiple sources of value, in order to better weigh competing priorities in resource management.
In practice it is sometimes crude, but it’s been <a href="https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA_CF_Final_en.pdf" target="_blank">standardised internationally</a> and its scope is expanding to include <a href="https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/eea_final_en.pdf" target="_blank">social, cultural, and intrinsic benefits</a>.
Using environmental accounting we’ve <a href="https://rdcu.be/vXlL" target="_blank">investigated</a> the tall, wet forests of Victoria’s Central Highlands to weigh the competing economic cases for continuing <a href="https://www.vafi.org.au/" target="_blank">native timber harvesting</a> and creating a <a href="https://www.greatforestnationalpark.com.au/" target="_blank">Great Forest National Park</a>. But first we’ll explain a little more about environmental accounting, and how we put a price on trees.
<h2>What we count</h2>
Essentially, environmental accounting involves identifying the contributions of the environment to the economy, summarised as gross domestic product (GDP). In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics standardises the data and reporting of these contributions in the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AusStats/ABS@.nsf/MF/5204.0" target="_blank">System of National Accounts</a>. The Bureau also produces <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AusStats/ABS@.nsf/MF/4655.0" target="_blank">environmental accounts</a> that extend the range of information presented - e.g. water and energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
But there are other things of value, like positive environmental and social outcomes, worth incorporating into calculations. <a href="https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/eea_final_en.pdf" target="_blank">Ecosystem accounting</a> gives researchers a framework for doing this, extending the accounting to look at the value of different “ecosystem services” – the contributions of ecosystems to our wellbeing - and not just goods and services captured in our national accounts or environmental accounts.
For example, businesses and homes pay a price for water delivery, but the supplier doesn’t pay for the water that entered the dam. That water is an ecosystem service created by forests and the atmosphere. By assessing costs in the water supply industry, we can estimate the value of the ecosystem service of water provisioning.
<h2>The value of Victoria’s Central Highlands</h2>
Victoria’s Central Highlands are contested ground. Claims and counter-claims abound between the proponents of native timber production and those who are concerned about the impacts of logging on water supply, climate abatement and threatened species.
<a href="https://rdcu.be/vXlL" target="_blank">Our research</a> has, for the first time, directly compared the economic and environmental values of this ecosystem. It shows that creating a Great Forest National Park is clearly better value.
With any change in land management, there will be gains and losses for different people and groups. Assessing these trade-offs is complex, made even more so by patchy and inconsistent data.
Through careful accounting, we synthesised the available data and calculated the <a href="https://tsrhub.worldsecuresystems.com/Ecosystem%20Complete%20Report_V5_highest%20quality.pdf" target="_blank">annual contributions of industries</a> to GDP. In 2013-14, the latest year for which all financial data were available, these came to A$310 million for water supply, A$312 million for agriculture, A$260 million for tourism and potentially A$49 million for carbon storage. (There is no current market for carbon stored in native forests in Australia – more on that in a minute.)
All of this far exceeds the A$12 million from native timber production. Although timber production is a traditional industry, its contribution to the regional economy is now comparatively small.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186939/original/file-20170921-16572-3kqj0h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186939/original/file-20170921-16572-3kqj0h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> The GDP contribution in millions of dollars by primary industries in 2013-14. Author provided
The industries that use ecosystem services are classified as <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ANZSIC" target="_blank">primary production</a> – agriculture, forestry and water supply. This classification is comprehensive (it covers all economic activities) and mutually exclusive (there is no overlap of categories). Downstream uses of the products from agriculture, forestry and water supply are an important consideration for the industries as a whole, but are included in manufacturing industries and not in ecosystem accounts.
<h2>Older forests are more valuable</h2>
Native timber production involves clearfell harvesting (<a href="https://www.vicforests.com.au/planning-1/harvestingtypes" target="_blank">removing the majority of trees at the site</a>) and slash burning (using <a href="https://www.vicforests.com.au/planning-1/harvestingtypes" target="_blank">high-intensity fire to burn logging residue and provide an ash bed for regeneration</a>). Regenerating forests are younger, with all trees the same age, and have lower species diversity.
This means these young forests contribute less to biodiversity, carbon storage, water supply and recreation. Therefore harvesting native timber requires a trade-off between these conflicting activities.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186940/original/file-20170921-16572-1mfc03p.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186940/original/file-20170921-16572-1mfc03p.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Trade-offs between industries in their use of ecosystem services can be complementary (green) or conflicting (red). Author provided
But <a href="">more than 60%</a> of the native timber harvested in the Central Highlands is used for pulp. This can be substituted by production from plantations that are more efficient and increased use of recycled paper. Both softwood and hardwood plantations can provide <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522854190-the-forest-wars" target="_blank">substitute sawlogs</a>.
If we phased out native forest harvesting, increases in the value of water supply and carbon storage would offset the loss of A$12 million per year contributed by the industry. (It would also most likely increase profits for the tourism and plantation timber sectors.)
Older trees use less water than young regrowth, and allowing native forests to age would increase the supply of water to Melbourne’s main reservoirs by an estimated 10.5 gigalitres per year. That’s worth <a href="https://tsrhub.worldsecuresystems.com/Ecosystem%20Complete%20Report_V5_highest%20quality.pdf" target="_blank">A$8 million per year</a>. Security of water supply for the increasing population of Melbourne is an ever-present concern, particularly with projected decreases in rainfall and streamflow.
Older forests also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091300030X" target="_blank">store more carbon</a> than younger regrowth forests. The federal government’s Emission Reduction Fund does not recognise native forest management as an eligible activity for <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund" target="_blank">carbon trading</a>, but if this changed the forest could earn carbon credits worth A$13 million per year. This would provide an ongoing and low-cost source of carbon abatement, which could be used to meet Australia’s emissions reduction targets, while the Victorian government could use the money gained to support an industry transition.
Of course, economic benefit is only one way of looking at land. We know that the Central Highlands is home to unique flora and fauna that cannot be replaced (much of which is <a href="https://tsrhub.worldsecuresystems.com/Ecosystem%20Complete%20Report_V5_highest%20quality.pdf" target="_blank">increasingly under threat</a>). But careful environmental accounting can help explicitly define the various trade-offs of different activities.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84357/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">It’s particularly important when legacy industries – like native timber harvesting – are no longer environmentally or economically viable. The accounting reveals the current mix of benefits and costs, allowing management of this area to be reconsidered.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heather-keith-145929" target="_blank">Heather Keith</a>, Research Fellow in Ecology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-lindenmayer-4848" target="_blank">David Lindenmayer</a>, Professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-vardon-165459" target="_blank">Michael Vardon</a>, Visiting Fellow at the Fenner School, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-cant-buy-me-love-but-you-can-put-a-price-on-a-tree-84357">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Money can't buy me love, but you can put a price on a tree

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81479/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The traditional Australian suburban backyard is being lost to higher-density housing and massive project homes on small lots.
City planning is focused on making cities more compact, which in some ways is desirable, and the large backyard is seen as unsustainable and undesirable because of the space it consumes. But its loss could well be increasing the risks of physical and mental health problems among city residents.
Private and secure backyards are places where people can retreat from the relentless pressures and intensity of city life. This sort of open space may provide the essential nurturing environment city dwellers need to cope mentally and physically with the stresses of their lives.
And cities are stressful places in which to live and have always been so. In the second century AD, Roman poet Juvenal wrote that the noise and lack of sleep in Rome was a major problem. Only wealthy Roman citizens could deal with the stress by building homes surrounded by peaceful gardens outside the city centre.
<h2>How is our health affected?</h2>
Today, evidence shows us that city dwellers, while benefiting from the advantages of city living, also suffer.
For instance, they are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, and their risk of psychosis increases dramatically. City dwellers have been shown to have a 39% greater risk of mood disorders and a 21% added risk of anxiety disorders compared to rural dwellers.
Life stresses clearly play a major role in causing poor mental health among city dwellers, but the impact of the environment cannot be ignored. A recent review of 50 studies shows that an environment devoid of nature may have undesirable impacts on health or quality of life. Part of the problem lies in the visual absence of plants and landscape.
It’s reasonable, then, to suggest that a lack of landscaped settings, such as backyards, could reduce emotional wellbeing, particularly among people less able to cope with mental stresses.
<h2>A place of vanishing backyards</h2>
Perth, where project homes bigger than 300 square metres are common, provides an interesting case study.
When devising Perth planning policies in the 1950s, Gordon Stephenson argued that the large backyards associated with Australian homes reduced the need for large public recreation areas. The backyard was seen as necessary for healthy city living.
By the 1970s, land subdivisions in Perth usually produced a residential lot around 600m2 with a frontage of 20 metres. Because project homes were so much smaller then, with a minimum 6m rear setback, a Perth family usually had a backyard of 120m2 at the very least. These areas provided space for large trees, cubby houses, climbing frames, swings, gardens and area to throw a ball.
Today, Perth planning regulations require private open space smaller than a double garage per family household. Houses like those of Alkimos and Ellenbrook, on Perth’s fringes, spread almost from boundary to boundary.
The houses comply with Perth planning requirements that allow areas under eaves, patios, verandahs and paved parking areas to be included in open space calculations.
<h2>Starved of space, and hotter</h2>
The result is little useful recreational outdoor space. Far from being child-friendly, these family homes without backyards are restricting our children from enjoying a normal active life in the safety of their homes.
Children have to use indoor spaces for recreation. This usually take the form of sedentary entertainment sources such as television and electronic games, adding to a great public health problem confronting our children. Obesity is associated with a lack of exercise as well as eating fast food.
Reducing open green space is also increasing urban temperatures, with major physical health consequences. All Australian capitals will increase significantly in average temperature by 2050. Perth will become Australia’s hottest capital with estimated heat-related deaths increasing from 294 a year to 1,419, many more than the city’s annual road toll.
It has been known for many years that the best way to combat urban heat is by providing well-landscaped open spaces with large trees. This is the very type of space that many large backyards provided.
We can confirm this cooling effect using thermal imaging. This thermal image of suburban Perth, taken on a 38-degree day, shows that landscaped backyards in older suburbs (blue) are far cooler than more intense housing developments with little private open space (orange to red).
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/179764/width754/file-20170726-20682-17jv4ol.jpg" alt="">
A thermal image shows older suburban areas with large landscaped backyards are much cooler (blue) than the hotter (orange-red) higher-density areas of Perth. Dr Paul Barber ArborCarbon
Leadership is needed
What can and should be done?
The principle is simple: in the suburbs we need to build smaller two-storey project homes with large backyards open to the sky, just as they have learnt to do in the suburbs of European cities. The role of these backyards can change as family lifecycle needs change.
Achieving this, however, will be difficult. Australians show little self-control of their consumption even when warned of the consequences.
A change is needed, driven by courageous, sensible and forward-thinking politicians who can see beyond the compact city pushed by planning bureaucrats.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linley-lutton-298755" target="_blank">Linley Lutton</a> is Adjunct Senior Teaching Fellow in Urban Planning and Design, University of Western Australia and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Vanishing Australian backyards leave us vulnerable to the stresses of city life

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/79419/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Land clearing is accelerating across eastern Australia, despite our new research providing a clear warning of its impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, regional and global climate, and threatened native wildlife. 
Policies in place to control land clearing have been wound back across all Australian states, with major consequences for our natural environment. 
One of the recent policy changes made in Queensland and New South Wales has been the introduction of self-assessable codes that allow landholders to clear native vegetation without a permit. These codes are meant to allow small amounts of “low-risk” clearing, so that landholders save time and money and government can focus on regulating activities that have bigger potential impacts on the environment. 
However, substantial areas of native forest are set to be cleared in Queensland under the guise of vegetation “thinning”, which is allowed by these self-assessable codes. How did this happen?
Thin on the ground
Thinning involves the selective removal of native trees and shrubs, and is widely used in the grazing industry to improve pasture quality. It has been argued that thinning returns the environment back to its “natural state” and provides better habitat for native wildlife. However, the sciencesupporting this practice is not as clear-cut as it seems.
Vegetation “thickening” is part of a natural, dynamic ecological cycle. Australia’s climate is highly variable, so vegetation tends to grow more in wetter years and then dies off during drought years. These natural cycles of thickening and thinning can span 50 years or more. In most areas of inland eastern Australia, there is little evidence for ongoing vegetation thickening since pastoral settlement.
Thinning of vegetation using tractors, blades and other machinery interrupts this natural cycle, which can make post-drought recovery of native vegetation more difficult. Loss of tree and shrub cover puts native wildlife at much greater risk from introduced predators like cats, and aggressive, “despotic” native birds. Thinning reduces the diversity of wildlife by favouring a few highly dominant species that prefer open vegetation, and reduces the availability of old trees with hollows. 
Many native birds and animals can only survive in vegetation that hasn’t been cleared for at least 30 years. So although vegetation of course grows back after clearing, for native wildlife it’s a matter of quality, not just quantity. 
Land clearing by stealth?
Thinning codes in Queensland and New South Wales allow landholders to clear vegetation that has thickened beyond its “natural state”. Yet there is little agreement on what the “natural state” is for many native vegetation communities.
Under the Queensland codes, up to 75% of vegetation in an area can be removed without a permit, and in New South Wales thinning can reduce tree density to a level that is too low to support natural ecosystems.
All of this thinning adds up. Since August 2016, the Queensland government has received self-assessable vegetation clearing code notificationstotalling more than 260,000 hectares. These areas include habitat for threatened species, and ecosystems that have already been extensively cleared.
It may be that the actual amount of vegetation cleared under thinning codes is less than the notifications suggest. But we will only know for sure when the next report on land clearing is released, and by then it will be too late. 
Getting the balance right
Vegetation policy needs to strike a balance between protecting the environment and enabling landholders to manage their businesses efficiently and sustainably. While self-regulation makes sense for some small-scale activities, the current thinning codes allow large areas of vegetation to be removed from high-risk areas without government oversight. 
Thinning codes should only allow vegetation to be cleared in areas that are not mapped as habitat for threatened species or ecosystems, and not to an extent where only scattered trees are left standing in a landscape. Stronger regulation is still needed to reduce the rate of land clearing, which in Queensland is now the highest in a decade. 
Protecting native vegetation on private land reduces soil erosion and soil salinity, improves water quality, regulates climate, and allows Australia’s unique plants and animals to survive. Landholders who preserve native vegetation alongside farming provide essential services to the Australian community, and should be rewarded. We need long-term incentives to allow landholders to profit from protecting vegetation instead of clearing it.
Our research has shown that Australian governments spend billions of dollars trying to achieve the benefits already provided by native vegetation, through programs such as the Emissions Reduction Fund, the 20 Million Trees program and Reef Rescue. Yet far more damage is inflicted by under-regulated clearing than is “fixed” by these programs.
Imagine what could be achieved if we spent that money more effectively.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/april-reside-9817" target="_blank">April Reside</a> is Researcher, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anita-j-cosgrove-382757" target="_blank">Anita J Cosgrove</a> is Research Assistant in the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-silcock-385018" target="_blank">Jennifer Silcock</a> is Post-doctoral research fellow, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/leonie-seabrook-98778" target="_blank">Leonie Seabrook</a> is Landscape Ecologist, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/megan-c-evans-4271" target="_blank">Megan C Evans</a> is Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental Policy, The University of Queensland.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Land clearing on the rise as legal ‘thinning’ proves far from clear-cut

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77393/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Half of the world’s people now live in urban areas. This creates competition for resources and increases pressure on already limited green space. 
Many urban areas are still experiencing active degradation or removal of green space. To reverse this trend and ensure the multiple benefits of green space are realised, we urgently need to move toward on-ground action.
However, there is no clear guidance on how to translate the evidence base on green space into action. There is limited information to guide green-space practitioners on how much is “green enough”, or on how to manage and maintain green space. There is also a lack of guidance on how to deliver the multiple benefits of green space with finite resources.
<h2>Why we need green spaces</h2>
A recent World Health Organisation (WHO) report aims to provide guidance on how to tackle the uncertainties of providing such spaces.
There is a substantial evidence base to show that green space is good for us. It is associated with many health benefits, both physical and mental – including reductions in illness and deaths, stress and obesity – and a range of positive social, environmental and equity outcomes.
Providing adequate green space within our urban areas is therefore paramount. We need to preserve, enhance and promote existing green spaces and create new spaces.
Various political frameworks underscore the need for these spaces in our cities. For example, the New Urban Agenda calls for an increase in safe, inclusive, accessible, green and quality public spaces. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development pledges to:
… provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular, for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
<h2>Moving toward action</h2>
The WHO report carried out a systematic review of the published evidence on green-space interventions. The review found a variety of intervention types have strong evidence for delivering a range of health, social and environmental outcomes.
These intervention types range from smaller green spaces, such as street trees and community gardens, to larger, more interlinked spaces, such as parks and greenways. This signals the need to think beyond the traditional urban park when considering how to meet the demand for green space among growing urban populations.
Another finding of the review was that urban green-space interventions seem to be most effective when a physical improvement of the space is coupled with social engagement.
This highlights the importance of understanding the intervention’s target audience. Sufficient time and resources must be devoted to engaging with this audience. This should happen both during the design and implementation phases and when the intervention is completed – and promoted.
<h2>Learning from others</h2>
The WHO report compiled case studies of urban green-space interventions from across Europe, and documented the common lessons from these. 
This unearthed a range of findings. For example, fostering multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations during planning, implementation and evaluation is a key factor in creating a successful green space.
Another key finding was the importance of understanding that urban green-space interventions are long-term investments. They therefore need to be integrated within local development strategies and frameworks – such as urban masterplans, transport policies and sustainability and biodiversity strategies.
An example of an urban green-space intervention that showcases good practice, and which features as a case study in the WHO report, is the Connswater Community Greenway in Northern Ireland. This project adopted a bottom-up approach and emphasised community engagement. A full-time community support officer was employed. 
Having public engagement embedded from the start ensured the local community’s needs were well understood. The intervention’s design was responding to these identified needs. 
Coupling this local understanding with the latest thinking on good practice led to an evidence-based design that was fit-for-purpose in the local context.
The project was also understood to be a long-term investment. A 40-year management and maintenance plan for the greenway was developed from the outset. 
The WHO report represents an important step forward. As worrying trends in mental ill-health, obesity, social isolation, health inequalities and environmental degradation grow globally, there is a pressing need to implement equitable solutions – and green space has a key role to play in this. 
Urban green-space interventions can deliver health, social and environmental benefits for all population groups – particularly among lower socioeconomic status groups. There are very few – if any – other public health interventions that can achieve all of this.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-cleary-310766" target="_blank">Anne Cleary</a> is nature and health PhD Candidate, Griffith University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ruth-hunter-376963" target="_blank">Ruth Hunter</a> is lecturer, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Green space – how much is enough, and what’s the best way to deliver it?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75840/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Access to high-quality public open space is a key ingredient of healthy, liveable cities.
This has long been recognised in government planning policy, based on a large body of academic research showing that accessible green spaces lead to better health outcomes.
However, cities are home to more than just people. We also need to accommodate the critters and plants who live in them. This includes the species who called our cities home before we did.
Greening cities that are becoming denser is a major challenge. Green spaces and density are both good for health outcomes when designed well. However, higher-density development can place added pressure on green space if not well planned and managed.
The South Australian government is leading the way in the design of public green spaces in denser cities by bringing together the multiple actors needed to create change. This includes the Heart Foundation, Departments of Health and Ageing, Environment Water and Natural Resources, Office for Recreation and Sport, the South Australian Local Government Association and the Office of the Chief Architect, as well as researchers from RMIT University and the University of Melbourne.
This is the new shift required for urban greening practice – led by practitioners with support from research evidence provided by (and in collaboration with) academics.
In Victoria, Planning Minister Richard Wynne has called for the suburban backyard to be maintained in the refreshed Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. This policy recognises the importance of private green space by establishing minimum garden areas in new developments.
Another major challenge is increasing urban heat and climate change. Some tree species we know and love will no longer be viable in cities that are several degrees warmer than they were.
Suitable species for future climates need to be selected, as the City of Melbourne has recently demonstrated. Increasing temperatures and the resulting loss of old trees will have adverse consequences for public health, ecology and biodiversity.
Understanding how best to achieve these benefits, and the trade-offs involved in delivering them, is particularly important today. Our cities are growing rapidly. We are seeing increasing populations, greater housing density, rising temperatures, growing rates of obesity, diabetes, stress and depression, and declining native biodiversity.
Why is greening on the agenda?
Urban greening is now recognised as a public health issue. New research has found its benefits include:
<ul>
<li>lower rates of anti-depressant prescriptions in neighbourhoods close to woodlands in the UK;
</li>
<li>happier people living in areas with more birdlife; and
</li>
<li>better health outcomes with increased neighbourhood tree coverage in the US.
</li>
</ul>
Ecological research also shows that urban green spaces can support many kinds of birds, bats, bees and plants. Urban greening has even been found to lead to safer neighbourhoods.
Australian urban planning and policy need to embrace these findings. Multiple government portfolios must work together to better plan for green cities that achieve maximum impact for economic, environmental and public health outcomes.
What do we mean by green space?
Green spaces are areas of public and private land covered with vegetation. This includes most areas we traditionally see as public open space: parks, gardens and sports ovals.
Green space also includes other areas of public land: street trees and streetscapes, nature conservation reserves, community gardens, school grounds and public buildings with green walls, facades and roofs. On private land, green spaces include residential gardens, golf courses and greening on and around private buildings.
All these green spaces together provide multiple benefits. The Heart Foundation and South Australian government recently commissioned an evidence review of how quality green space is supporting health, wellbeing and biodiversity. This report shows that green spaces can be designed to provide multiple benefits.
These benefits are delivered by including features that are known to influence physical activity, mental health, social, cultural, environmental and biodiversity outcomes. For example, planting trees in parks, gardens or streets can have many benefits:
<ul>
<li>cool cities;
</li>
<li>slow stormwater runoff;
</li>
<li>filter air pollution;
</li>
<li>provide habitat for some animals;
</li>
<li>make people happier; and
</li>
<li>encourage walking.
</li>
</ul>
Greening solutions aren’t simple
The benefits green spaces provide are also influenced by local context: climate, inequity and social disadvantage, culture, or resident/user age and gender.
However, if green spaces are well designed with community input, these local factors can provide opportunities to maximise impact. For example, green space can be more beneficial when provided in areas of social disadvantage with limited existing green space, and trees provide more cooling benefits in hotter cities.
There are no magic bullets. If green spaces aren’t well designed, for example, trees can:
<ul>
<li>reduce the area available for some active sports;</li>
<li>shade rooftop solar panels;
</li>
<li>reduce flower, fruit and vegetable production;</li>
<li>create mess through fallen leaves; and</li>
<li>create unsuitable habitat for other kinds of plants and animals.
</li>
</ul>
These complex interactions highlight the need for academics and practitioners to work collaboratively across disciplines and sectors. These should include urban planning, public health, urban ecology, urban forestry, engineering, community development and economics. Knowledge needs to be shared and translated into action.
Our green cities of the future need to be designed to benefit human (and non-human) residents equitably. We need to move beyond a reliance on backyards and parks that were designed according to 19th-century principles (and using 19th-century species).
Cities need green spaces that are well designed, creatively delivered, accessible to all, and managed and maintained with appropriate resources to ensure long-term quality and availability.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-davern-144750" target="_blank">Melanie Davern </a>is Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alison-farrar-357347" target="_blank">Alison Farrar </a>is Research Assistant, School of Ecosystem &amp; Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dave-kendal-180942" target="_blank">Dave Kendal </a>is Research Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences and the Clean Air and Urban Landscape hub of the National Environmental Science Program, University of Melbourne. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-gunn-146721" target="_blank">Lucy Gunn </a>is Research Fellow, Community Indicators Victoria, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73849/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Our cities and regions depend on the critical nodes and arteries that together comprise urban infrastructure systems. This includes energy, food, water, sewerage and communications.
The positioning of critical infrastructure is crucial to our understanding of the world we live in and how we see ourselves. It’s our means of survival as Homo urbanis.
This means key questions around critical infrastructure need to be better considered. How is it critical, when and for whom?
Beyond espionage, sabotage and coercion
Critical infrastructure has received much attention in recent years. The reasons include concerns about exposure to terrorist attack, disruption by disasters, rising awareness of the interdependent nature of urban infrastructure, and changes in ownership and responsibility for infrastructure assets. 
The Australian government defines critical infrastructure as:
… those physical facilities, supply chains, information technologies and communication networks which, if destroyed, degraded or rendered unavailable for an extended period, would significantly impact on the social or economic wellbeing of the nation or affect Australia’s ability to conduct national defence and ensure national security.
This definition expands traditional thinking to include network and information infrastructure. However, the emphasis is on national security and defence issues such as espionage, sabotage and coercion. Infrastructure is defined as critical on the basis of what is at threat should it be destroyed or disabled, and how much that matters.
Yet what is critical about critical infrastructure is not just a matter of national security threats. It is also the key linkages between this infrastructure and human and environmental system vulnerability, integrity and equity. 
Experiences of critical infrastructure are not equal, but highly contingent on political and economic priorities, influence and opportunity.
Critical how and for whom?
When securing urban infrastructure, the focus is on whom or what is being secured – and from what. 
Any issue is capable of securitisation which involves casting the security issue as a threat that calls for emergency measures. But security for whom? From what threats? By what means? And at what cost? 
Critical infrastructure can be government-owned (such as dams), privately owned (like airports), community-owned (like irrigation systems), or involve public-private partnerships (like electricity distribution networks). 
The ownership patterns of infrastructure of all kinds have changed rapidly in recent years. This has left questions of responsibility unresolved. An example is the ownership versus service provision arrangements for the supply and distribution of catchment water resources. 
Alongside the need for improved service quality, cost efficiencies, variety and choice, a growing trend towards highly uneven and inequitable community and environmental outcomes demands our attention. 
How critical infrastructure is defined influences which stakeholders are deemed to have a role or responsibility in protecting it. 
In South Australia, a severe thunderstorm blacked out the state in 2016. The resulting political finger-pointing distracted attention from the real issues of risk and responsibility in delivering electricity to the community. 
Critical when and at what scale?
The scale question leads us to consider assets not normally included as critical infrastructure. An example is the vital role of natural ecosystems in our long-term economic and social welfare. Natural or semi-natural water catchments are in many places the sole source of water for towns and cities. 
However, maintaining the integrity of these water supplies has largely ignored the importance of the catchment itself in providing much-needed filtering and treatment of that water. The contamination of Canberra’s water supply, following the 2003 bushfires in the Cotter River catchment, was unprecedented in redefining what is critical infrastructure.
An alternative to a national security approach to critical infrastructure involves a complementary focus on the local scale. Local access to food, for instance, can be seen as critical. The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance argues for community-scale urban food policies and practices. 
In 2001, foot and mouth disease broke out in the UK. The crisis exposed individuals’ vulnerability to increasingly integrated, global food supply chains. That underscores the merits of social and environmental policy at local government level. 
Big assets and sudden events are at one level defensible as a prime focus. But this approach is limited by a traditional framing of critical infrastructure and a bias towards certain timeframes.
Decisions on resources, priorities and effort inevitably involve scale-dependent judgements. These judgements should be defined by the nature of the impacts: one-off or cumulative; human or nature-oriented; fast or slow onset. 
For example, local infrastructure – minor roads, flood buffers, bridge culverts and so on – is critical for society to function. Yet it is not well catered for in policy. Local government capacity to provide and manage infrastructure is limited. And varying interpretations of scale and criticality shape the funding debate. 
Our urban arteries
Critical infrastructure networks shape and sustain our cities and regions. But they also expose communities to a range of threats. These include natural disasters, terrorism, peak oil and climate change. 
So how do we decide what is critical and what is not? To arrive at an answer we must consider not only physical or informational assets, but the inclusion/exclusion of communities, places and values. 
How can we better recognise and integrate natural ecosystems as critical to human survival and flourishing? How do we do this amid infrastructure privatisation and securitisation? And where are the points of resistance and pathways for alternative action?
We need to be more imaginative about critical urban infrastructure. A better, more sustainable approach needs to: expand our understanding of what critical infrastructure is to include environmental and local systems; learn from previous security decisions and their outcomes; and include local levels of activity to broaden the narrow national security approach in order to meet contemporary infrastructure challenges.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">Wendy Steele</a> is associate professor of Urban Policy and Planning, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/karen-hussey-48688" target="_blank">Karen Hussey</a> is deputy director, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-dovers-342834" target="_blank">Stephen Dovers</a> is Emeritus Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

What's critical about critical infrastructure?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73914/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A key question amid the consternation over the current state of Australia’s east coast energy market has been how much renewable energy capacity to build, and how fast.
But help could be at hand from a surprising source: electric vehicles. By electrifying our motoring, we would boost demand for renewable energy from the grid, while smoothing out some of the destabilising effects that the recent boom in household solar has had on our energy networks. 
Australia’s electricity infrastructure was built largely without renewable energy in mind, and primarily to maintain reliability for when demand peaks. The high uptake of solar panels, while good for reducing carbon emissions, has reduced grid demand by 5-10% in Australia, and as a side-effect has lowered the value of network assets, raised power prices, and made the grid trickier to manage. 
Electric vehicles can ease the pressure on spikes in electricity prices by adding storage capacity. They are effectively a distributed storage system - with smart meters they can feed electricity back into the grid when prices are high. These vehicles’ battery reserves can thus help with the balancing of the grid and provide energy in the peak period. Electric vehicles would also add battery storage to the grid at the same time, which can reduce the need to size the grid for demand peaks. 
One way to think of electric vehicles is essentially as batteries you can drive. So before the government pursues plans such as spending A$2 billion on expanding the Snowy Hydro scheme, it should do a cost-benefit analysis comparing the returns from similar infrastructure investment in electric vehicles. 
According to the Office of the Chief Economist, Australia produced 6 billion kilowatt hours of solar PV in 2015 – enough to run almost 2 million cars, equivalent to 10% of Australia’s total current passenger vehicle fleet. Increasing demand for grid-sourced electricity will put downward pressure on network prices, which typically are roughly half of the cost of a household energy tariff. At a time when demand has declined and policy settings have created lots of investor uncertainty, the increased demand will also encourage investment in new generation capacity.
Electric vehicles can also increase economic activity in Australia and improve air quality and health. Australia has nearly 20 million cars that together drive 280 billion km each year. Passenger vehicles alone consume 20 billion litres of fuel each year in Australia. At A$1.50 per litre, that is A$30 billion per year that is burned, with roughly half the revenues going to multinational oil companies and the other half going into federal coffers as fuel tax.
The health costs of pollution from vehicle emissions adds a further A$1,450 per household per year in major cities, an annual impost of some A$14.5 billion on household and government budgets – roughly the same as what the government earns in fuel tax.
If all vehicles were electric, the same distance could be driven with electricity costing less than A$15 billion, because electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines (although this is slightly offset by minor grid losses). This would thus deliver a double saving, in terms of both household fuel bills and reduced health costs. 
Changing gear
Of course this won’t happen overnight, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The electricity grid will need time to adjust and add extra renewable capacity, as the cost of electric cars comes down and coal power stations get old. 
Both economic analysis and recent political experience suggest that encouraging investment in renewable energy is expensive, especially if the only driving factor is the need to cut greenhouse emissions (important though that is).
Here is where electric vehicles can really help the grid. Swapping petrol or diesel cars for electric ones on a large enough scale will increase Australia’s flatlining electricity demand, making it more lucrative for energy suppliers to invest in new generation capacity. Given the increasing cost of gas, and the declining support for coal, on balance most of this demand will be met with new renewable capacity, facilitated by the addition of all these new “batteries you can drive”. 
Click to enlarge
A suggested pathway to energy sustainability via electric cars. Adapted from Andrich et al. Inequality as an obstacle to sustainable energy use, Energy for Sustainable Development
Government policy should be to set some high-level national interest objectives, such as maintaining gas for domestic use, and then simply not interfere with the market as much as possible. But political leaders are struggling to keep up with the rapid changes in technology and the market. The pathway to sustainability would have been smoother and faster if governments had looked to WA for a gas reservation policy, not intervened by closing coal, and reduced the subsidies that allowed solar power to grow so disruptively fast (particularly in wealthier households). 
Making more effort to promote electric cars would also have allowed a more successful transition to renewable energy and reduced the price shocks being suffered by eastern Australia in areas such as the gas market. Fortunately, it is not too late.
Hitting the road
Investing in a new car is not a decision most households take lightly. This is especially true of electric cars, which are expensive, are not marketed widely, are available in only a limited range of models, and are subject to concerns about charging and range.
Presently, electric vehicles are only affordable for higher-income households, which is ironic given the benefits they would offer lower-income households in terms of fuel budgeting and reduced exposure to urban pollution and health costs. 
One-third of an electric vehicle’s cost is batteries, which are rapidly coming down in price. Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that by 2022, electric models will cost the same as their petrol counterparts. That will be the point of liftoff for sales. 
Meanwhile, electric cars have an undoubted cool factor. Buying one is a powerful way to show you care about your community’s future. Pardon the pun, but just look at the way Tesla founder Elon Musk electrified the debate over South Australia’s electricity problems.
For governments, electric vehicles offer an opportunity to make significant inroads on environmental and health problems, not to mention urban planning and infrastructure. The demand for car batteries could also boost related industries, such as lithium mining, in which Australia is a world leader.
Feeling electric
Simple, inexpensive policies could encourage electric vehicle uptake, such as reducing registration fees and stamp duty on electric cars and allowing them to drive in bus or other priority lanes, while also hiking the tax on diesel cars that cause cancer.
Other emerging transport trends, such as car-sharing clubs and ride-sharing apps, could also hasten the uptake of electric vehicles. Sharing increases the number of kilometres driven by each individual vehicle, meaning that the upfront costs are paid back more rapidly, leaving the owner with a car that is paid off and cheaper to run than a petrol or diesel model.
These facts are not lost on the car manufacturers themselves. But given the potential co-benefits to the electricity grid and community health, we might expect power utilities and health agencies to join the push to actively promote electric vehicles – not to mention politicians who are looking to deal with our energy issues and win a few votes along they way.
Mark Andrich is director, Sustainability and Finance Specialist, University of Western Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-andrich-146801" target="_blank">here</a>. Jemma Green is research fellow, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jemma-green-105891" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

How electric cars can help save the grid

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Going green has gone from being a luxury option to a necessity for the built environment sector today.
For cities around the world it has a key role to play in helping to cut their long-term carbon footprint. In Singapore, for example, the built environment is responsible for almost a quarter of our carbon emissions.
To reduce this we need to change not just the way buildings are constructed and run but also the perception of sustainability.
In the early stages of Singapore’s green building movement, green building practices were not perceived to offer any competitive advantage. However, today, we are seeing a shift in mindset with green buildings now regarded as a form of value creation for developers. Adding green building certifications such as Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority’s (BCA) Green Mark to a development’s list of credentials can help boost the developer’s corporate image and the prestige of such developments.
Singapore: A green work in progress
Such moves are driving rapid change. Over the past decade, Singapore has greened almost one-third of its building stock including improving energy and water efficiency, using eco-friendly construction material and creating healthier indoor space. It is well on track to achieving the target of greening 80 percent of all the buildings by 2030 to meet the standards set by the BCA Green Mark certification process.
Other cities can learn from the initiatives used to make progress. The Singapore government, for example, offers incentives for higher green building ratings. One of the most popular for developers is to obtain up to 2 percent additional Gross Floor Area when they achieve higher Green Mark ratings for new developments.
For older buildings, BCA also provides support to building owners to co-fund up to 50 percent of the energy efficiency retrofit cost. We’ve seen that retrofitted commercial buildings can benefit from an increase in their capital value of about 2 percent.
This is proof that profit and eco-consciousness can go hand-in-hand for green real estate.
The rise of green-minded tenants
It’s not just developers embracing sustainability; increasingly, green real estate is driven by tenants. Businesses which strongly advocate corporate social responsibility are increasingly expecting a better indoor environment, lower operating costs and enhanced market value for their spaces.
Once again, governments can help boost demand for sustainable buildings by extending green building certifications to tenants. In Singapore, the public sector champions this by leasing office spaces only from buildings which are at least certified Green Mark GoldPLUS. Public sector events are also required to be held in Green Mark-certified venues.
Real estate intermediaries are also stepping up to meet such demands. Through green leases and green facilities management, they now offer prospective building tenants a way to differentiate themselves by making a positive commitment to the environment, without undermining the viability of their business.
However, there’s a flipside to this as more buildings meet green standards, the additional value these currently provide is likely to decrease. To truly reflect the advantages offered by green buildings, more efforts by real estate appraisers will be required on how best to capture the value of green attributes.
All of this is just the start of a long-term sustainability commitment. The next challenge for cities is to ensure that green building practices are self-sustaining. A critical factor is to have a business environment that values green spaces and the people who created them.
Building for the future
Regulation will have huge impact on the future of green real estate around the world. Following the Paris agreement which came into force on 4 November 2016, sustainability regulations will become even more relevant to global real estate investors. For example, in the European Union, cities will be going beyond just greening buildings, to having net-zero buildings as a regulatory requirement.
Jurisdictions will also be created to mandate public disclosure of building energy use data, further intertwining energy use into decision-making on leasing and investment.
Stepping out of the “business as usual” approach may appear daunting, but with strong industry leadership and greater collaboration among all stakeholders, coupled with a forward-looking mandatory framework, the road to having “future-ready” green buildings and cities is a promising one.
This article by Ang Kian Seng, group director (Environmental Sustainability) at the Building and Construction Authority in Singapore, appeared in <a href="https://www.jllrealviews.com/viewpoint/why-green-real-estate-is-the-way-forward/" target="_blank">JLL Real Views</a>.
 
</body></html>

Environment

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Environment

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News