Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator
Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
This paper addresses:
1. the background to the development of a national corridor protection strategy;
2. population and urban growth challenges that are driving the need to develop
new infrastructure corridors;
3. key issues to be addressed in an effective corridor protection strategy; and
4. principles for a national corridor protection strategy (see Appendix 4) which
would then be translated into bi-lateral agreements between the Australian
Government and State/Territory governments.
1.
Background to the Development of a National Corridor Protection
Strategy
Governments around the country – State, Territory and national – are increasingly
acknowledging the need to identify, plan for and protect corridors and sites for major
infrastructure projects.
To varying degrees, governments have been taking steps to translate policy intent
and aspiration into practice.
Nevertheless, the protection of corridors is proving a significant challenge. Some
jurisdictions have argued that protecting corridors is likely to be beyond their
financial capabilities. Without changes in planning, funding and governance
arrangements, there is reason to believe that the admirable corridor protection
intentions of various governments will rarely translate into effective corridor
protection practices.
Support and involvement from the Australian Government will be required. Changes
will also be required at the State and Territory level.
With pressure on government budgets, translating the sound aims of major plans
into practice will not be easy. Corridor identification, planning and protection
requires some outlays in the short and medium-term in order to minimise or avoid
long-term costs. Yet experience shows that governments often defer such outlays,
especially for corridor protection, in order to give priority to projects that can be
completed in the short-term.
Infrastructure Australia
GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
Telephone (02) 8114 1900 facsimile (02) 8114 1932
www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au
The protection of corridors and sites is both a significant current challenge and an
opportunity. The viability of projects valued in the several tens of billions of dollars
(e.g. the Melbourne ‘Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport Corridor’, freight access
to/from the Port of Brisbane, access to ports in Western Australia, various corridors
in and around Sydney, underground rail lines in several cities, east coast High
Speed Rail) are dependent on corridor protection.
Although land acquisition costs for these and other projects would not all crystallise
up front, the overall cost of land acquisition for these projects alone is itself probably
of the order of $20 billion over the next few decades. As noted above, difficulties
arise because corridor protection outlays are almost always ‘crowded out’ at budget
time in order to make ‘room’ for short-term, perhaps less strategically important
projects.
1.1
Past Approaches to Corridor Protection
During the mid-twentieth century, a number of jurisdictions applied processes that
ensured future infrastructure corridors were protected from development.
In a number of cases, infrastructure now viewed as essential to the functioning of
those cities were developed in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s on corridors that were
identified and protected in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Examples include the M1
and EastLink in Melbourne and the M4 and M5 in Sydney. The rail line to Mandurah
south of Perth is a more recent example.
Appendix 1 sets out a list of projects that have been developed on corridors
reserved at some point in the past.
With a few case-specific exceptions (e.g. identification of a corridor in the late 1980s
for a rail line to Melbourne Airport and the Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport
Corridor /E6 in Melbourne), the mechanisms used to protect those corridors were
not applied as subsequent metropolitan plans in the 1980s – 2000s extended the
reach of those cities. The reasons appear to vary from city to city. They include:



1
administrative changes (e.g. the winding up of the Melbourne Metropolitan
Board of Works, and thereby use of the Board’s rating powers which had
raised funds for key metropolitan infrastructure, including road transport
corridor protection1);
adverse reaction to the reservation of a variety of road corridors when public
attitudes to transport were shifting in the 1970s (Adelaide, Melbourne and
Sydney); and
actions to reduce public outlays, especially those linked to hypothecated
funding arrangements (e.g. the scaling back of the Sydney Region
Development Fund in the 1980s and 1990s).
The MMBW’s rates were not used for rail corridors. Responsibility for rail corridors fell to the Victorian Railways
Commissioners and later the Victorian Government. In practice, although a number of road corridors in
Melbourne were protected, few if any rail corridors were protected. Like the Sydney Region Development Fund,
the Board’s rates were also used for acquisition of metropolitan parks and to consolidate land for development
(old and inappropriate subdivisions). The Board’s rates also covered water supply, sewage and drainage
infrastructure and catchment protection.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 2
1.2
Recent Experience
During the course of its review of capital city planning processes in 2010 and 2011,
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council identified
weaknesses in current corridor protection practices.
Appendix 2 sets out a list of projects that have been/are being developed, but in a
manner that has been more difficult or costly than might otherwise have been the
case.
Corridor protection arrangements in Western Australia, especially the hypothecated
Metropolitan Region Improvement Tax, appear to provide a plausible basis for
protecting new corridors in Perth.
Even so, the arrangements do not extend to growing areas on Perth’s fringe, e.g. in
the Peel region. Nor do the procedures in Perth ensure that the other corridor
protection characteristics listed below are part of the infrastructure and land use
planning system.
In some other cases, governments are facing challenges following through on past
decisions and efforts to protect corridors or sites for major projects. This has been
an issue for the Outer Metropolitan Ring Transport Corridor in Melbourne and the
previous Cross River Rail proposal in Brisbane. Both governments have grappled
with difficult decisions to protect corridors and sites for these projects.
In other jurisdictions, effective corridor protection has been quite limited or ad hoc.
In summary, recent history suggests there is significant scope to improve current
infrastructure planning processes across Australia so as to:




identify, plan for and protect corridors, sites and their environs for the
development of future infrastructure networks (especially transport);
minimise the upfront cost of corridor and buffer protection and management;
maximise the advantages of corridor protection, e.g. by ensuring that they
are integrated in metropolitan and regional land use strategies and that,
wherever reasonably possible, corridors are reserved that are capable of
being used by various infrastructure networks; and
ensure that the operation of infrastructure corridors (existing or prospective)
is not compromised by development adjoining or in the vicinity of those
corridors.
All four points above need to be included in an effective corridor protection regime,
though the first two points – improved planning and cost effective protection of
corridors - are the most critical.
1.3
The Costs of Failing to Protect Corridors
Limited or ineffective efforts to protect and acquire (on a timely basis) corridors for
the development of infrastructure can add materially to the cost of infrastructure
projects. Failure to protect corridors can result in:

preferred corridors being ‘built out’. As a consequence, projects have to be
diverted or placed in tunnels. Diverting a project usually makes the project
longer and adds to its capital cost. Placing a project in a tunnel adds
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 3


significantly to its capital cost – multiples of 8-10 times the cost per kilometre
are a guide – as well as adding to the project’s on-going operational and
maintenance costs. Recent tunnelled motorway proposals are projected to
cost in the order of $600-1,000 million per kilometre to build. In the context
of current and prospective transport budgets, planning for future transport
links needs to identify lower cost options involving surface corridors;
projects being deferred or not proceeding at all because the cost of
developing the project has become prohibitive. Even if the project scope
remains unchanged, a deferred project is likely to be more expensive due to
real increases in the cost of construction. Real increases in construction
costs have been a feature of the Australian construction market for some
years. These cost increases place greater demand on limited budgets; or
significant opportunity costs, i.e. where, despite poor corridor protection,
projects proceed (albeit at a higher cost), in the process drawing on funds
that might otherwise have been available to pursue other projects.
The additional capital costs arising from inadequate corridor protection have an
economic as well as a financial dimension. This is because the additional costs are
likely to lead to delays in the commencement of projects, thereby delaying the
economic benefits, e.g. travel-time savings and agglomeration benefits, which would
otherwise be associated with the project. In addition, projects that follow a longer
route, e.g. to avoid development that has been allowed to occur, lock in lower travel
time benefits compared to a more direct route.
2.
Urban Growth Driving the Need for Corridor Protection
Australia’s major cities are projected to grow appreciably over the coming century.
Recent population projections prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
indicate that Australia's population (estimated at 22.7 million people in June 2012)
will increase to between 36.8 and 48.3 million people by 2061 (with a mid-level
projection of 41.5 million), and to between 42.4 and 70.1 million people by 2101
(with a mid-level projection of 53.6 million).2
Medium level projections for the population of the capital cities3 suggest they may
grow as follows from 2012 to 2061:








2
3
Sydney – from 4.7 million (M) to 8.5M
Melbourne – from 4.2M to 8.6M
Brisbane – from 2.2M to 4.8M
Perth – from 1.9M to 5.5M
Adelaide – from 1.3M to 1.9M
Hobart – from 0.2M to 0.3M
Darwin – from 0.1M to 0.2M
Canberra – from 0.4M to 0.7M
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101, Catalogue No.
3222.0, Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0
These figures exclude the population of nearby regions, e.g. the lower Hunter and Illawarra in the case of
Sydney, Geelong in the case of Melbourne, Gold and Sunshine Coasts in the case of Brisbane and areas south
of Perth. In the case of Sydney and Brisbane, in particular, the figures for the relevant conurbation would be
somewhat than the figures above.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 4
It is highly unlikely that the larger cities will grow without the need for new
infrastructure corridors. Plans for all capital cities involve some level of greenfield
development, i.e. areas where corridor protection will be both most important and
most productive and where buffer areas can be managed as development occurs.
Most metropolitan strategies aim to accommodate a substantial share of population
growth (usually 50% or more) in brownfield areas. The operational integrity of
existing corridors in those areas will need to be protected. Protecting new corridors
in established areas presents its own challenges. Securing surface corridors is
likely to encounter opposition from local residents. Underground corridors require
careful management of interfaces with existing development, e.g. noise and
vibration, as well as new development, e.g. the location and design of foundations
and underground structures. The NSW Government, in particular, has experience
here that could be shared with other jurisdictions.
The comments above should not be taken to mean that corridor protection is
exclusively an ‘urban issue’. Identifying a corridor across rural land that is not
otherwise subject to significant development pressures may still adversely affect the
owner’s ability to sell the property and create a ‘moral obligation’ or expectation to
purchase the affected property, even if there is no legal obligation to do so.
Although corridor protection is principally an issue associated with the development
of public infrastructure, it can also be an issue for purely privately owned and
operated infrastructure. For example, it appears there may be some issues around
the protection and acquisition of corridors for privately sponsored freight rail projects
in Queensland
Appendix 3 sets out a list of projects where corridor protection is required to support
future, cost-effective infrastructure development.
3.
Key Issues Shaping an Effective Corridor Protection Strategy
This section addresses a range of issues that will bear on the development of a
National Corridor Protection Strategy.
3.1
Extent of Cross-Jurisdictional Support
Policy statements and plans by the Australian Government and various
State/Territory governments demonstrate strong support for the concept of
protecting corridors. The extent of support for specific corridor protection measures
(including funding commitments) has yet to be tested.
COAG’s criteria for effective planning of Australia’s capital cities, agreed in
December 2009, deal with corridor planning and protection. Criteria 3 states,
“Capital city strategic planning systems should … provide for nationally significant
economic infrastructure, including: (a) transport corridors … (c) intermodal
connections … (e) the reservation of appropriate lands to support future expansion.”
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 5
3.1.1
Australian Government
The Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional
Development, The Hon. Warren Truss MP, recently stated in a speech that:
The Government is considering what role high speed rail could play as part
of Australia's long term transport planning, which we will do as part of a
broader approach that looks at the preferred options across all transport
modes and in consultation with eastern state governments.
I plan, as the next stage, to consult with the states and the ACT to ascertain
their support for the proposal and their willingness to begin the next step—
reserving the corridor for a future high speed rail line.
This is not just innocent drawing lines on a map. It will be a major multibillion dollar commitment. You cannot designate a corridor through our cities,
suburbs, towns and rural landscapes without being willing to purchase the
affected lands and that will be expensive and without an immediate return.4
In its Asian Century White Paper, the former Australian Government stated that “a
long-term national infrastructure strategy … would be useful in developing a longerterm pipeline of projects and in reserving and developing nationally significant land
transport corridors that will assist future project commencement.”[emphasis added]5
The Action Plan forming part of the previous Government’s National Urban Policy
stated that the government former would:
Commission Infrastructure Australia to review how nationally significant
transport, communications and energy corridors, sites and buffers in our major
cities can be better planned, protected and managed [and, in turn]
Implement effective land use and planning strategies that …require planning
and protection of economic corridors, sites and buffers in order to be eligible for
Commonwealth infrastructure funding …6
Both the National Ports Strategy and the draft National Land Freight Strategy
incorporate provisions supporting the need to protect corridors.7
The Infrastructure Finance Working Group (IFWG) concluded in 2012 that
infrastructure planning needs to be improved. Protecting corridors would be
consistent with the IFWG’s findings and recommendations, notably:
Recommendation 6: The Australian Government should strengthen its linking
of infrastructure funding to State and Territory governments implementing
agreed reforms including changes that increase their capacity for investment.
4
5
6
7
Truss, W. (2013) ‘Driving the Costs Out of Rail’, Speech to Ausrail 2013 conference, 28 November, Available at
http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2013/wts009_2013.aspx
Australian Government (2012) Australia in the Asian Century: White Paper, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, p. 144
Australian Government (2011) Our Cities, Our Future: A National Urban Policy for a Productive, Sustainable
and Liveable Future, p. 80
For example, actions 1.5 and 2.4 in the National Ports Strategy deal with corridors and buffers.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 6
Recommendation 8: Long-term infrastructure strategies should be used to
develop a more transparent, robust and funded pipeline of infrastructure
projects and must include an early indication of the likely financing and funding
sources, enabling the public and private sectors to efficiently deploy capital
and resources.8
3.1.2
State and Territory Governments
As noted above, State and Territory governments are increasingly recognising the
need to identify and protect infrastructure corridors and key sites in their planning
strategies.
In a recent discussion paper on the development of a 40 year metropolitan strategy
for Melbourne, the Victorian Government stated:
Planning will need to allow for future opportunities by preserving transport
options, preserving land for major new facilities and services, and by
acknowledging that places take time to develop.9
The NSW Government’s recent NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan identifies
19 transport corridors across Sydney that need to be protected to enable cost
efficient, long-term development of the transport network.10
Agencies within the Western Australian Government are:


working on a proposal to government to address perceived deficiencies in
the Peel and Greater Bunbury Region Planning Schemes;
considering funding options for infrastructure corridor protection and
acquisition/compensation in the balance of the State not covered by the
Region Planning Schemes.
Past Queensland transport plans have identified the need to protect corridors for
new rail and road networks, sites for intermodal terminals, and to protect land close
to freight routes.11
3.2
Extent of Stakeholder Support
Non-government stakeholders are identifying the need for governments to introduce
effective corridor protection measures.
For example, the Committee for Melbourne has argued that there is a need for:




8
9
10
11
responsibility to be allocated for coordinated long-term planning;
integrated land-use planning and infrastructure provision;
land to be set aside where future infrastructure may require dedicated sites
or corridors (emphasis added);
future infrastructure needs to be identified for perhaps a 50 year horizon,
responding to population and economic growth drivers and social
aspiration”12.
Infrastructure Finance Working Group (2012) Infrastructure Finance and Funding Reform, pp. v-vi
Victorian Government (2012) Melbourne, let’s talk about the future, p. 8
NSW Government (2012) NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, p.209
Queensland Government (2010) Draft Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South
East Queensland, pp70-71.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 7
In its submission on the Draft New South Wales Freight and Ports Strategy, the
Property Council of Australia stated that the Strategy should be guided by five key
principles, the first of which was:
Corridor protection: Freight corridors needed for the future should be
identified and protected now. This should include corridors to: support a second
airport for Sydney; connect regional centres including Newcastle and
Wollongong; and facilitate the movement of interstate freight to Melbourne and
Brisbane.13
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has supported corridor protection for the High
Speed Rail (HSR) project, stating the Stage 2 “report must spur immediate action to
place planning protection over the HSR corridors, ensuring they are not lost to other
development.” 14
3.3
Commonwealth Powers and Role
The National Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 allows funds to
be spent on corridor protection for railways and roads. Section 4(2) of the Act
defines ‘construction’ to mean:
(c)
(d)
investigation and associated engineering studies in connection with:
(i) the construction, reconstruction or realignment of the railway or
road; or
(ii) the bringing of the railway or road to a higher standard; or
(iii) the planning of alternative routes for the railway or road; and
the acquisition of an interest in land for the purpose of:
(i) constructing, reconstructing or realigning the railway or road; or
(ii) the bringing of the railway or road to a higher standard;
It appears that, by the creation of a regulation, the Act also permits acquisition of
land for inter-modal terminals.
Although past corridor protection measures were pursued largely by State and
Territory governments (reflecting the historical practices and inter-governmental
relations of that time), the Australian Government has demonstrated periodic
willingness to protect key sites or corridors.
The most notable example was the decision by the Australian Government in the
mid-1980s to purchase the site for an airport at Badgerys Creek in Sydney’s southwest. Approximately 1,700 hectares of land was acquired for the airport site itself,
and a further several hundred hectares on the airport approaches was acquired as a
noise buffer.
More recently, the Australian Government has funded the purchase of properties
that will be required for a future upgrade/replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge on
Hobart’s north-western fringe. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport stated
at the time:
12
13
14
Committee for Melbourne (2010) Melbourne Beyond 5 Million: Getting Better as we Get Bigger - Volume 3, p.7
Property Council of Australia (2013) Submission on the Draft NSW Freight and Ports Strategy – 15 March, p.3
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (2013) High Speed Rail Right For Australia’s Future – But The Corridor
Must Be Protected Today – Press release, 11 April
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 8
While construction of the new bridge is some years away, the important work
of project planning and design development needs to continue. Part of that
process involves the need to preserve the future footprint of the new bridge
and to give certainty to the community whose property will be affected.
Consultation with affected land-owners, stakeholders, and community has
meant that this footprint has been clearly identified and we can now give these
people the option to move on with certainty. 15
The Australian Government is also using its existing assets to facilitate transport
projects. The government has committed funds to facilitate development of an
intermodal terminal on land at Moorebank in south-western Sydney that is currently
used by Defence.
Like some States, the Australian Government has also disposed of land that had
been acquired to protect infrastructure assets. During the early 1990s, the
government sold land that it had previously acquired as a noise buffer adjoining a
residential area near Melbourne Airport (Western Avenue, Tullamarine).
3.4
Corridor Optimisation through Shared Use
Given the high cost of acquiring land for new corridors, and given the constraints on
government budgets, it is vital that opportunities to share corridors are actively
explored wherever possible.
Such an approach was considered by the Victorian Government when planning the
scope of the Outer Metropolitan Ring Transport Corridor. It has been designed to
provide for future road and rail links.
This integrated approach has not been the norm. Upgrades of the Hume Highway
and now the Pacific Highway have been pursued with little regard for opportunities
(even in part) to re-route nineteenth century rail alignments that often restrict rail
freight speeds to 30-50 km/h.
3.5
Corridor Protection Options (Acquisition and Non-Acquisition)
Land acquisition costs for projects are borne sooner or later. They cannot be
avoided. Australian Government and State/Territory capital contributions to projects
inevitably include some component for land acquisition. By protecting corridors and
where necessary acquiring land ahead of construction, governments have the ability
to:


15
16
ensure that efficiently scoped projects are developed (i.e. shorter, more
direct routes with fewer tunnels);
ensure land is acquired at a lower cost, i.e. it minimises risks of real
increases in the cost of land acquisition. This is a major issue as peri-urban
land moves from rural to urban uses. For example, research has shown that
fringe urban land prices in Melbourne grew by between 5 and 25 times the
rate of the Consumer Price Index between 1994 and 200416. Work
Albanese, MP, A, (2012) Property Acquisition Funding for New Bridgewater Bridge, Media Release AA
231/2012, Issued on 7 November.
Buxton and Taylor (2011) ‘Urban Land Supply, Governance and the Pricing of Land’, Urban Policy and
Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 9

commissioned by Infrastrcutrue Australia which reviewed land price
movements across the three east coast cities showed a pattern of real
increases in urban land prices.17 Experience in Sydney’s north west is also
relevant in this regard18;
acquire other land that may be associated with a project, e.g. to facilitate
coordinated development around transport nodes.
Properties acquired ahead of construction, whether for hardship reasons or in order
to capture increases in land values, can be rented out prior to construction of the
project. This practice has been common across jurisdictions, and minimises the
holding costs for governments.
Other mechanisms may also be available which would minimise upfront costs, e.g.
purchasing options on land or purchasing a share in value of the land.
In areas subject to lower development pressures, it may be sufficient simply to place
a notice on land titles and land use planning instruments of a long-term intention to
develop a corridor.
3.6
Corridor Buffering
Effective corridor protection requires more than the identification and protection of
corridors for future infrastructure projects. Existing corridors also need protection –
in this case from inappropriate development on adjoining or nearby land.
The performance of infrastructure corridors can be compromised where noise
sensitive land uses are allowed on adjoining properties.
For example, at the Port of Fremantle, high density development is to be permitted
next to the freight line to the port. There is a risk that future residents of the area will
complain about noise associated with operation of the rail line and that, as a result,
regulatory requirements may be imposed on future rail operations, affecting the
productivity of the port logistics chain.
Similar issues have arisen in other jurisdictions.
Governments have recently recognised the need to protect the operation of airports
from inappropriate development on nearby land. At its meeting on 18 May 2012, the
Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) endorsed the National
Airport Safeguarding Framework and an associated national land use planning
regime to protect airports and communities from inappropriate off-airport
development.
SCOTI identified the following seven principles as fundamental to an effective
National Airports Safeguarding Framework:
Principle 1. The safety, efficiency and operational integrity of airports should
be protected by all governments, recognising their economic, defence and
social significance.
17
18
Urbis (2013) Review of Historic Urban Land Value Growth East Coast Capital Cities, Consultant report for
Infrastructure Australia
A golf course in what was then a semi-rural part of north west Sydney was acquired for approximately $1.3M in
1980 using funds from the Sydney Region Development Fund. It is understood the site was then sold to the
developer of the Rouse Hill town centre in around 2002 for approximately $200M. As well as the proceeds, the
large site in a single ownership facilitated ‘master planning’ and staged development of the town centre.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 10
Principle 2. Airports, governments and local communities should share
responsibility to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and
regional planning.
Principle 3. Governments at all levels should align land use planning and
building requirements in the vicinity of airports.
Principle 4. Land use planning processes should balance and protect both
airport/aviation operations and community safety and amenity expectations.
Principle 5. Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in
the interests of both aviation and community safety.
Principle 6. Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address
aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures.
Principle 7. Airports should work with governments to provide
comprehensive and understandable information to local communities on
their operations concerning noise impacts and airspace requirements. 19
There are obvious parallels with the operation of infrastructure corridors. It would be
incongruous to take action to protect the operational integrity of Australia’s major
airports but not protect the operational integrity of Australia’s major infrastructure
corridors (especially its transport corridors).
4.
Principles of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
The following characteristics should drive the design of a national corridor protection
strategy:




Rigorous planning and criteria for defining corridors;
Long-term outlook;
Stability and independent governance; and
Shared responsibility – to minimise the risk of governments (particularly
those of differing political persuasions) not protecting corridors (as at
present) or reneging on agreements (under a new regime).
Appendix 4 sets out a range of more detailed principles to give effect to these
characteristics. It is intended that these principles form the substance of a National
Corridor Protection Strategy, and that the principles would, in turn, be translated into
bi-lateral agreements between the Australian Government and respective
State/Territory governments.
19
Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (2012) Principles for National Airport Safeguarding
Framework, pp.6-9, Available at
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/index.aspx
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 11
Robust, Inter-Governmental and Inter-Sectoral Planning Processes
A national corridor protection strategy needs to apply to nationally significant
corridors that are handling or intended to handle large nationally, significant
transport flows. In essence, these corridors would be corridors and sites associated
with:



major export/import gateways;
principal interstate freight networks; and
substantial passenger flows between major centres in Australian capital
cities.
Most jurisdictions face some corridor protection challenges. In some cases, the
corridors in question are identified in existing plans. In general, the initial corridors
to be covered by a National Corridor Protection Strategy would be corridors
identified in existing plans.
Subsequent corridors to be covered by the Strategy would be derived from the
application of principles in existing strategic documents such as the National Ports
Strategy, the draft National Land Freight Strategy, and the metropolitan strategies
for capital cities.
The table attached to Appendix 4 sets out a number of initial corridors, whether in
existing plans or not, which could be covered by a National Corridor Protection
Strategy. The table also includes some corridors where there is an arguable case
both ways whether a corridor should be covered by the Strategy.
In undertaking further planning and project development on the corridors, key
considerations will include:


20
ensuring adequate planning and project development funds – without such
funds, the quality of planning and project development is compromised (with
longer term impacts). By comparison, the funds committed to project
development and feasibility studies on major resource and resource-related
infrastructure projects are many times greater (both in absolute numbers and
proportionately) than for government developed infrastructure. For example,
BHP is spending $735M on studies of Port Hedland Outer Harbour, and
Woodside (and partners) announced in early 2010 that they were to spend
$1.2B on feasibility studies for the Browse Gas Basin (approximately 3% of
the then anticipated capital cost of the project).20
securing inter-sectoral agreements, e.g. processes that incorporate strategic
planning by government ‘utilities departments’ such as energy and relevant
government business enterprises. There may be potential for sharing of
corridors, at least for some distance if not an entire corridor. For example,
TransGrid in NSW has medium to long term plans for upgrading its networks
south and north of Sydney. The perspectives of bodies such as the
Australian Energy Market Operator, and regulatory agencies such as the
NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and the Victorian
Competition and Efficiency Commission will also be relevant in this area.
Woodside announced in early April 2013 that, following the feasibility studies, it was deferring and re-assessing
investment in the Browse Basin. The estimated project cost had increased to $45 billion. This should not be
taken to mean the feasibility study was wasted, or that the project itself should not proceed. Rather it should be
seen as funding invested to minimise the risk that the company proceeded with a project that would have
adversely affected shareholder value.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 12
The planning processes need to provide for strategic assessment of ‘threshold’
environmental issues at an early stage, so that those threshold issues can be
considered at an early stage in:


the strategic planning process itself, e.g. during the development and review
of metropolitan plans or plans for regions or other geographic areas through
which a corridor might pass; and
(probably more importantly) the early phases of project development, i.e. the
processes for translating the strategic direction in a metropolitan or regional
plan into corridors that are sufficiently precise that:
o the corridor in question can then be protected; and
o the project can then proceed through later, more detailed
environmental assessment processes (i.e. when governments or
others decide to proceed with the project) in the knowledge that there
are no ‘show stopper’ issues about the location of the corridor itself.
This approach was used recently by the Victorian Government when planning the
Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport Corridor in Melbourne.
Robust Agreed Plans that Form the Basis for Joint Corridor Protection Initiatives
The product of the robust processes should be a series of plans that guide further
action. The plans would necessarily have a range of ‘planning horizons’, from shortterm (say 0-10 years), medium term (10-20 year), long-term (20-30 years), and very
long-term (30-50 years+). The horizons would trigger different corridor protection
actions by the parties involved. Given that infrastructure decisions necessarily
represent long-term commitments, and given that cities and regions will continue to
grow and change into the middle of the century, the plans need to have a truly longterm horizon (50 years) at the outer end.21
The plans would need to focus on agreed nationally significant corridors (although
the measures described further below could also be used by jurisdictions to protect
corridors at a lower (i.e. not nationally significant) level.
The plans and governance arrangements (see below) need to provide an ability for
parties to add corridors as agreed. Agreement on corridor protection should not
necessarily pre-determine prospective shares towards funding of the project(s).
Application of Agreed Corridor Protection Measures
Governments would need to agree on the most appropriate means of corridor
protection. In outline, this would involve:

21
in areas with low development potential – perhaps nothing more than
showing the corridor on a map or title or the equivalent of certificates issued
under S.149 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
The National Ports Strategy adopted by the Council of Australian Governments in July 2012 states that
“Planning documentation should reflect the different challenges faced by each port and demonstrate how the
capacity to match forecast trade task will be safely provided, with an outlook horizon of a minimum of 15-30
years.” (emphasis added).
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 13


in areas with higher levels of development potential (and therefore risk of a
corridor being ‘built out’) - reservation of lands in land use planning
instruments; and
land use planning controls on land adjoining infrastructure corridors (e.g.
permissible land uses, potential development conditions such as measures
to be incorporated in new developments to minimise the impact of noise (this
is akin to the processes for development around airports).
Governance Arrangements
A range of ‘umbrella principles’ would form the bulk of a National Corridor Protection
Strategy. The Strategy and principles could be presented to the SCOTI for
endorsement. Subsequent specific governance arrangements would need to be
considered. Options include:


a multi-party inter-governmental agreement; and
a series of bi-lateral agreements.
The latter seems more likely, as the circumstances for corridor protection will vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The principles in Appendix 4 would be enshrined in
agreements (to be known as National Corridor Protection Agreements) between the
Australian Government and each participating State and Territory.22
The governance arrangements would include a Board with:



representation from both the Australian and State/Territory governments;
responsibility for oversight of a dedicated corridor protection fund;
responsibility for reporting to the two governments.
The Board is intended to be a tangible point to focus improved planning and corridor
protection efforts by the two governments, especially where the State/Territory
government is likely to be approaching the Australian Government in the future for
funding assistance to develop a project.
A shared governance arrangement will minimise the risk that nationally significant
corridors are not protected. If only one government is responsible for corridor
protection, there is a risk that corridor protection will ‘fall off the radar’ and not be
pursued. A joint arrangement reduces that risk, since implementation shortcomings
by one government are likely to be highlighted by the other.
The Board would oversee arrangements for disposal of surplus land23, including
whether proceeds from sales are returned to:


the corridor protection fund (see below);
the governments that are party to the agreement.
The governance arrangements will need a process for treating existing corridor
protected assets (e.g. land and funds) that might be injected into the fund that is
overseen by the relevant bi-lateral Board.
22
23
As the Australian Capital Territory is surrounded by NSW, it is possible that any national corridor protection
agreement for the ACT would need to be a tri-partite agreement with the NSW and the Australian Government.
This might also include the power to sell development or airspace rights, following a recommendation to the two
governments and having regard to strategic plans for the area.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 14
Consideration will need to be given to the possibility of providing for dispute
resolution processes (or sanctions on parties - possibly financial) where a party fails
to follow through on necessary actions required to protect corridors.
Corridor Protection Funds and Stable Corridor Protection Budgets
A dedicated fund is likely to be required to give independence and stability to
governments’ corridor protection efforts. Such an approach was at the core of
previous protection regimes in Sydney and Melbourne and the current model in
Perth.
Budgets for the corridor protection fund would need to be based on a reasonable
estimate of:



The overall cost of acquiring the corridor(s) in question and decisions about
the timing of any acquisition (the land in a corridor does not all need to be
acquired up front, though, as noted earlier, there may be advantages in
making ‘advance purchases’ on a strategic basis in some cases);
A plausible assessment of prospective ‘hardship acquisitions’ or acquisitions
that may arise from other requests from land owners, e.g. if State/Territory
legislation provides owners with a right to demand acquisition of affected
properties on request from the owner; and
The anticipated time when the infrastructure project in question (or projects
in the case of multi-sector corridors) might proceed and, therefore, when
corridor acquisition will need to be completed.
Consideration will need to be given to shared financial contributions to a fund.
Options for the contributions may need to be considered in detail. These may
include:


Commonwealth share (in respect of corridors agreed as nationally
significant) – if not provided by a hypothecated revenue stream, then by a
medium term inter-governmental agreement for financial contributions based
on recommendations from the Board. The agreement would need to have a
medium term (say not less than 10 years), and rolled over at regular (say 5
yearly) intervals;
State/Territory agreements – also covered by the medium-term intergovernmental agreement, and ideally secured against a hypothecated
funding regime.
Experience from the past, and from the current Perth regime, points to the
conclusion that some form of hypothecated funding regime is central to the
operation of an effective corridor protection regime. Other models are possible
though arguably less desirable, e.g. using a hypothecated funding regime
established by a State/Territory government to meet all corridor protection costs but
with ‘catch up’ contributions (e.g. reflected in the share of construction costs) from
the Commonwealth at the construction stage.
Contributions might also be sourced from the revenue bases of any corporatised
entities that also use the corridors on a shared basis. For example, where a corridor
is intended to be used by an energy network provider, the cost of its share of the
corridor protection costs might be incorporated in the asset base and prospective
capital investment used to determine relevant network charges.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 15
Given the population growth and fiscal challenges facing all governments, there may
be a need for some form of financial consequence for:


governments not signing on to the principles forming the National Corridor
Protection Strategy; or
governments withdrawing from the Strategy or otherwise failing to honour
their undertakings under a National Corridor Protection Agreement.
In summary, there is an argument to be made that, if a State/Territory is responsible
for failing to protect a corridor (and vice versa), it should bear the incremental costs
of developing the project above what it would have cost if the corridor had been
protected.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 16
Appendix 1 - Examples of Projects that Have Been Developed on
Previously Protected Corridors and Key Sites
Jurisdiction/
Project
Planning
Corridor Protection
Activity
Development of
Project
M2 motorway
1951 Cumberland
County Plan
1950s and 1960s
Construction of the
project occurred in
the 1990s. At time of
planning approval,
there was local
opposition to using
the surface corridor
(the opponents
advocated placing the
project in tunnel), as
parts of the protected
corridor had remained
as bushland.
M4 motorway
1951 Cumberland
County Plan
1950s and 1960s
Construction of the
project occurred over
a number of stages,
with the initial section
occurring in the early
1970s and most of
the project
constructed in the
mid-late 1980s and
early 1990s
M5 motorway
1951 Cumberland
County Plan
1950s and 1960s
Construction of the
project occurred over
a number of stages,
with the initial section
occurring in the early
1990s and most of
the project
constructed in the late
1990s and early
2000s.
Need for a corridor
identified in the
Melbourne
Metropolitan
Planning Scheme
(MMPS) from 19541988 and in
subsequent
municipal planning
schemes.
Corridor originally
protected in 1950s
First sections
developed in 1970s,
Other sections in
1980s and 1990s.
Parts of corridor were
wide enough to allow
successive widening
from 4 to 6 to 8 lanes.
The
NSW
Victoria
M1
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 17
Jurisdiction/
Project
Planning
Corridor Protection
Activity
Development of
Project
EastLink
motorway
Originally included
in 1969 Melbourne
Transportation Plan
(then identified as
F35 Freeway)
Corridor protected in
planning schemes in mid
1960s.
Project development
and construction
occurred between
2003 and 2008.
M80 motorway
Need for a corridor
was first identified
in MMPS from
1954.
Corridor originally
protected in 1950s.
Variation to the original
alignment in the Deer Park
area in 1980s.
Construction occurred
between late 1980’s
and late 1990’s.
Further widening
under way, largely
within current
reservation.
One section had route
varied prior to
construction.
Geelong Ring
Road
Melbourne
Airport future
development
Changes in
governance roles of
both transport and
planning agencies in
regional Victoria, e.g.
Geelong Regional
Commission,
VicRoads and
council.
Melbourne Airport
Strategy and its
associated EIS
were approved by
State and
Commonwealth
Governments in
1990.
Commonwealth
approval required
Victoria to
undertake planning
controls to ensure
that the airport
could develop to its
ultimate capacity
and to protect its
flight paths.
Melbourne
Airport environs
area
To be completed
Wide spaced, 4 runway
configuration for the
airport’s ultimate
development. (Very long
term timeframe 2050+).
Included ground transport
access, environmental
management framework,
flight path protection and
identification of noise
affected areas.
Included in the State
Planning Policy
Framework component of
all planning schemes in
1997 as a document to
which planning authorities
must have regard.
To be completed
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
To be completed
Page 18
Jurisdiction/
Project
Planning
Corridor Protection
Activity
Avalon Airport
future
development
Avalon Airport
Strategy was
released by the
Victorian
Government and
Department of
Defence in 1993
Wide spaced, 3 runway
configuration for the
airport’s ultimate
development. (Very long
term timeframe 2050+).
Included ground transport
access, flight path
protection and
identification of noise
affected areas.
Development of
Project
Included in the State
Planning Policy
Framework component of
all planning schemes in
1997 as a document to
which planning authorities
must have regard.
Sth. Australia
Various
projects on
corridors
identified in
1969
Metropolitan
Adelaide
Transport Plan
Mid 1960s
1970s
O-Bahn developed on
Modbury Transport
Corridor in mid-late
1980s. Southern
Expressway
constructed in midlate 1990s.
1960s/ 1970s, e.g.
Perth Regional
Transport Study,
e.g.:
1988 – 2004:
The southern
Kwinana Freeway
extension was opened
in September 2009.
West Australia
Southern
section of the
Kwinana
Freeway, near
Mandurah
- Perth Bunbury
Route (Kwinana
Freeway) –
Where Should it
Go? (1984)
The land for the section of
the Kwinana Freeway
extension within the Peel
region was reserved for
Primary Regional Roads in
the Peel Region Scheme
in 2003.
- Peel Regional
Strategy (1994)
- Inner Peel
Region Structure
Plan (1997)
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 19
Jurisdiction/
Project
Planning
Corridor Protection
Activity
Development of
Project
Mandurah Rail
Line
Metroplan
(Metropolitan
Strategy) (1990)
1993 - 2003:
Early to mid-2000s.
Construction
completed in
December 2007.
Inner Peel Region
Structure Plan
(1997)
The land for the section of
Mandurah
Passenger Railway line
within the Peel Region was
reserved for railways in the
Peel Region Scheme in
2003.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 20
Appendix 2 - Examples of Projects that have Become More Expensive or
Become More Difficult to Develop Due to Poor/Limited Corridor Protection
Jurisdiction/
Project
Planning
Corridor Protection
Activity
Issues
North West Rail
Link
Land use plan for
NW sector
approved in late
1980s. Rail line
proposed in 1990s.
No corridor
protection activity
until c.2004/05, and
then only on a
modest basis.
Land acquisition costs
higher than necessary.
Possible compromises in
alignment and additional
construction costs. Some
of corridor purchased near
height of property market.
South West Rail
Link
Land use plan for
SW sector
approved in mid
2000s. Rail line
proposed in early
1990s.
Fragmented efforts
with limited legal
basis in mid 2000s.
Little protected until
decision to proceed
with project.
Legal challenges. Initial
efforts were dependent on
support of local councils
(not always forthcoming,
for understandable
reasons). Much of
corridor purchased near
height of property market.
CBD Rail Line
Initial proposals
from early 1990s,
then firmed up in
mid 2000s.
Ineffective regime in
late 1990s based on
consultation
arrangements in
relation to
development
applications. Status
of protection
improved in mid
2000s through
application of a
State Environmental
Planning Policy.
Project not yet developed.
Hume Highway
and Main
Southern Rail
Line
Planning for realignment of Hume
Highway
commenced in
1980s. No
equivalent planning
for re-alignment of
rail line.
None or relatively
little, as re-alignment
largely occurred
through rural areas
facing few
development
pressures.
Project planning ‘silos’
and an absence of
strategic vision meant that
opportunities to consider
sensible, affordable realignments of the rail line
(or at least ensure a
corridor for a future realignment) were not taken.
Pacific Highway
Planning for realignment of old
Pacific Highway
occurred since mid
1990s and during
the 2000s.
None or relatively
little, as re-alignment
largely occurred
through rural areas
facing relatively few
development
pressures.
Project planning ‘silos’
and an absence of
strategic vision meant that
opportunities to consider
sensible, affordable realignments of the rail line
(or at least ensure a
corridor for a future realignment) have not been
taken.
NSW
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 21
Victoria
East West Link
Broad corridor
originally identified
in the 1969
Melbourne
Transportation Plan
No reservation.
Tunnels required over
some sections.
Demolition of industrial
properties likely over
some sections.
Opportunities for surface
corridor exist in areas
where there is potential
brownfields
redevelopment.
North East Link
Corridor originally
identified in the
1954 MMPS and
confirmed in the
1969 Melbourne
Transportation Plan
Reservation revoked
in 1970’s over part
of the route. Part of
remainder retained
as reservation for
arterial widening
Environmental and social
issues indicate that a
tunnel is expected to be
required for part of the
route.
Mid 1960s
1970s
Corridors sold off at
various points, e.g. in
early 1980s.
South
Australia
Various projects
on corridors
identified in
1969
Metropolitan
Adelaide
Transport Plan
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 22
Appendix 3 - Examples of Potential Future Projects Needing
Secure Long Term Corridor Protection
Planning
Corridor
Protection
Activity
Issues
Western Sydney
Freight Line and
Intermodal Terminal
Proposals for a
terminal and corridor
first identified in mid
2000s.
Nil to date
Significant
development
pressures throughout
Western Sydney are
closing out route
options and options for
a terminal site
(c.300ha+).
Sydney orbital corridor
First identified as a
long term option in Dec
2010 Metropolitan
Strategy for Sydney.
Nil to date
This would be the
analogue of the Outer
Metropolitan Ring in
Melbourne. Significant
development
pressures throughout
Western Sydney are
likely to be closing out
route options.
High speed rail line
Stage 1 study of route
options completed in
July 2011. Stage 2
(more detailed) study
due for completion in
January 2013.
Nil to date
Stage 1 report
suggests corridor
protection cost is of the
order of $5-6B.
Inland rail line
Studies of corridor
options undertaken in
mid-late 2000s.
Nil to date
Development
pressures likely to be
limited to near major
town and cities.
Second Sydney Airport
Since 1970s
Nil to date on
options not
ruled out by
governments.
Previous proposed
airport site at Badgerys
Creek (c.1,700 ha.)
has been protected/
acquired by the
Commonwealth.
Jurisdiction/ Project
NSW
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 23
Planning
Corridor
Protection
Activity
Issues
Outer Metropolitan
Ring – road and rail
corridor
Significant planning
exercise undertaken in
mid-late 2000s.
Corridor
reserved in
2010. First
major new road
corridor
reserved in
Melbourne
since 1960s.
Large cost of corridor
protection. Potential
for joint
Commonwealth/ State
involvement due to
national significance of
this corridor designed
to accommodate road,
high speed passenger
rail and heavy freight
rail.
North East Link
Surface corridor
abandoned in 1970s.
Land reserved for
arterial widening over
part of length of one
corridor. Land for
freeway over short
length of alternative
corridor..
Nil to date
(except arterial
widening).
Overall corridor
location still to be
determined.
EES process for
an alternative
corridor in early
1980s resulted
in decision not
to proceed with
that corridor
Significant
environmental and
social issues with any
alignment.
Need for corridor
identified in East West
Link Needs
Assessment study in
2008
Planning
process
underway, but
no formal
protection as
yet
Issues with threading a
tunnel through a built
up Central Business
District environment
with major buildings
and services.
Jurisdiction/ Project
Victoria
Melbourne Metro
IA priority pipeline
project.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 24
Jurisdiction/ Project
Planning
Corridor
Protection
Activity
Issues
Airport link to
Melbourne Airport
Previous planning
commenced in the late
1980s with its
recognition of a
proposed alignment
from Broadmeadows in
the Melbourne Airport
Strategy 1990,
planning schemes
amendment process in
1998-2001 and
continuing until
present.
Public
Acquisition
Overlay put in
place c. 2001
for a line, via
Sunshine,
diverting from
Albion-Jacana
line at Airport
Drive.
Noted as a proposed
project in Victoria’s
2012 IA submission.
Avalon Airport Rail Link
To be completed
To be
completed
To be completed
Western Intermodal
Freight Terminal
Following a strategic
planning process, a
preferred location has
been identified
Planning
process
underway but
no formal
protection as
yet
A large greenfields site
exists adjacent to
proposed future
freeway and near to
Regional Rail Link.
However, cost of
protection of site
remains an issue.
Port of Hastings –
future development
port facilities and
transport corridors
To be completed
To be
completed
To be completed
Cross River Rail
2007 – 2011
Some
properties
purchased.
New government has
said it will “defer Cross
River Rail acquisitions
until a real plan to
solve the inner city rail
capacity crisis is
developed.”
Southern Freight Rail
Corridor
Early to mid-2000s.
Corridor
gazetted in late
2010.
Some hardship
acquisition cases
received.
A range of corridor
options exist.
Alignment
recognised in
Melbourne
Airport Master
Plans approved
from 2003
under the
Airports Act
1996 (Cwlth)
Queensland
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 25
Jurisdiction/ Project
Planning
Corridor
Protection
Activity
Issues
Rail freight corridors in
regional Queensland
Late 2000s
Understood to
be nil to date.
Issue is likely to be
extent to which powers
of the state are used to
acquire land for
privately developed
projects (albeit projects
that offer significant
economic potential).
Heavy rail on Sunshine
Coast (CAMCOS)
Early 2000s
Limited to date.
Uncertainty re
availability of funding.
Development
proposals near
southern part of
corridor.
Road and rail corridor
to Fremantle outer
harbour
1990s
Corridor
protected in
Perth
Metropolitan
Regional
Scheme.
Links can proceed
when business case
requires, as corridor
has been protected.
Causeway East/Great
Eastern Highway
Interchange
TBC
Parts of corridor
protected in
Perth
Metropolitan
Regional
Scheme.
As transport demand
(car, cyclists, bus and
possible future light
rail) is anticipated to
grow over the next 20+
years, a review of the
existing corridor
requirements for this
area on the eastern
edge of the CBD is
under way.
To be completed.
Commonwealth
funding
provided in
2012/2013 to
allow purchase
on hardship
grounds.
To be completed.
Western Australia
Tasmania
Redevelopment of
Bridgewater Bridge
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 26
Appendix 4 – Draft Principles to be Incorporated in National Corridor
Protection Agreements
The principles to be enshrined in bi-lateral agreements (to be known as National
Corridor Protection Agreements) between the Australian Government and each
State/Territory government are as follows:
Determination of Corridors
1. Corridor and sites to be covered by a National Corridor Protection Agreement
shall be:
a. those links listed under the column ‘Probably Apply’ in the attachment to
these principles;
b. Such other corridors and sites agreed by the parties to a National Corridor
Protection Agreement (on the advice of the Board established under
principle 6 below) which:
i. are identified in 50 year port plans prepared under the National Ports
Strategy;
ii. are identified in the National Land Freight Strategy;
iii. service major commercial and residential centres in Australian capital
cities,
particularly where there is a reasonable possibility that:
 changes in type or density of land use will compromise the costeffective development and operation of a corridor;
 increasing urban land values will add to the cost of developing an
infrastructure corridor.
Corridor Definition
2. For those corridors and sites in 1(a) above:
a. the Australian Government and relevant State/Territory government agree
to commit funding in their respective 2015/16 budgets for further planning
and project development of the corridors;
b. The governments agree that by June 2017 they will complete:
i. the corridor development studies covered by 2(a) above (including
examination of the potential for multi-modal and cross infrastructure
sector sharing of corridors);
ii. strategic environmental assessments under the Environmental
Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act and relevant state/territory
legislation sufficient to confirm a corridor.
3. For those corridors and sites in 1(b) above, the Australian Government and
relevant State/Territory government agree to:
a. make such joint funding commitments as are required to undertake
planning and project development investigations that are sufficient to
identify corridors to which specific corridor protection regimes would then
apply and to complete those investigations within a period recommended
by the Board;
b. complete strategic environmental assessments under the Environmental
Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act and relevant state/territory
legislation sufficient to confirm a corridor within a period recommended by
the Board.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 27
Types of Corridor Protection
4. The results of the corridor or site development studies and environmental
assessments in principles 2 and 3 above will be used by the Board (to be
established under principle 6 below) to recommend specific protection
measures for the relevant corridor in line with the following criteria:
a. where there is a low probability of development pressures and/or in
increases in land values within the next 30 years, advice of the existence of
the corridor shall be provided to:
i. existing property owners affected by the corridor and on land in the
vicinity of the corridor;
ii. potential purchasers of property, i.e. when purchasers are making prepurchase conveyancing enquiries in relation to land on or in the vicinity
of the corridor.
b. medium-high probability of development pressures and/or increases in land
values within the next 30 years:
i. corridor protection in land use planning instruments and associated
funding to meet acquisition requirements in a rolling plan to be
approved by the Board;
ii. advice to existing landowners and prospective purchasers in line with
4(a) above;
iii. establishment of buffer zones in the vicinity of the corridor or site to
which the provisions in principle 5 below shall apply.
5. Buffer zones shall be created in land use planning instruments for land in the
vicinity of existing corridors or sites so that:
a. preferably, noise sensitive uses are not developed in those zones;
b. if noise sensitive uses are to be developed in the zones:
i. developers of land in the zones shall incorporate noise attenuation and
other measures into the design of the development to minimise the risk
that complaints from the uses of those developments will create
pressure to limit or constrain operation of the corridor or site;
ii. a notice shall be placed on the title of the relevant properties within the
zone and in pre-purchase conveyancing notices that the property is
within the vicinity of an infrastructure corridor or site covered by a
National Corridor Protection Agreement. The notice would identify the
economic significance and operational characteristics of those
corridors (e.g. 24/7 operation, high volume).
Joint Corridor Protection Board
6. The Australian Government and each State/Territory government shall establish
a Board to oversee implementation of the National Corridor Protection
Agreement within the relevant State/Territory. The Board shall comprise:
a. an independent chair agreed by the two governments;
b. three representatives of the Australian Government - one from the
transport/infrastructure portfolio, one from the Treasury, and one from the
portfolio with responsibility for environment and/or urban development;
c. three representatives of the relevant State/Territory government - one from
the transport/infrastructure portfolio, one from the Treasury, and one from
the portfolio responsible for land-use planning.
7. The Board shall have the following broad roles:
a. agree future corridors to be recommended to governments to be
considered for protection in accordance with the National Corridor
Protection Agreement;
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 28
b.
8.
for corridors that are being protected or are to be protected: development
and monitoring of a corridor protection budget for the jurisdiction, including
corridor by corridor estimates of the following matters:
i. an amount for further studies to define the corridor(s);
ii. estimates of likely acquisition demands over the coming 5 years under
hardship arrangements;
iii. estimates of advance purchases of land required for a corridor, i.e.
where the Board agrees it is appropriate to do so;
iv. estimates of rental proceeds from properties already acquired;
v. estimates of the proceeds from prospective sales of land previously
acquired for corridor protection purposes, e.g. where the infrastructure
project is to be or has been developed and surplus land is available for
sale;
c. make recommendations to the two governments on the shares (quantum
and source) they are to contribute over a rolling 10 years towards that
budget;
d. recommend buffer zones to be incorporated in land use planning
instruments and environmental controls;
e. such other roles as are agreed by the two governments.
The Board shall report to both governments on:
a. the identification and protection of corridors;
b. management of funds used in administering the National Corridor
Protection Agreement.
Contributions to a Joint Corridor Protection Fund
9. The Australian Government and each State/Territory government shall establish
a joint fund to be managed by the Board to give effect to the National Corridor
Protection Agreement.
10. Contributions to the fund shall be on a 50/50 basis, unless otherwise agreed by
the two governments.
11. Each State/Territory government agrees to introduce a hypothecated charge
over land in region(s) serviced by the corridors for their share of the protection
budgets recommended by the Board in their jurisdiction. Proceeds from the
charge shall be directed to the Board for use in administering the National
Corridor Protection Agreement.
12. The hypothecated charge shall commence operation from the 2016/17 financial
year.
13. The Australian Government agrees to commit funds in a rolling ten-year budget
sufficient to meet its share of the corridor protection budgets recommended by
the various Boards. The funds shall be directed to the Boards for use in
administering the relevant National Corridor Protection Agreement.
14. The rolling budget shall commence from the 2016/17 financial year.
Implications of Decisions by the Parties for the Cost of Projects within
Corridors
15. Other than the share of the cost of corridor protection itself, the share of funding
to be contributed by each government towards the cost of constructing and
operating a project within a corridor shall be as agreed by the two governments.
In other words, agreement on a share of funding for corridor protection shall not
pre-determine the respective shares of subsequent costs to be borne by the two
governments.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 29
16. That said, the respective share of corridor protection costs borne by the
Australian Government and the relevant State/Territory government incurred
prior to a decision to proceed with construction of an infrastructure project in a
corridor shall be a consideration for both governments when determining the
respective shares of funding to be contributed to the construction of the project.
17. Failure by a jurisdiction to agree to the National Corridor Protection Strategy or,
subsequently, to implement their responsibilities under a National Corridor
Protection Agreement will be considered a material event. The implications of
doing so for the cost of developing a project in an infrastructure corridor will be
a material consideration for Australian Government funding for a future project.
In other words, Australian Government funding would only be provided to the
level which would otherwise have applied had the corridor protection
arrangements been in place. Equally, failure by the Australian Government to
implement its agreed corridor protection measures would trigger an obligation to
provide a commensurately higher contribution towards the cost of developing
any project within the corridor.
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 30
Attachment to Principles
Corridors to Which a National Corridor Protection Strategy Could Apply
State/City
Probably Apply
May Apply
Queensland/
Brisbane





NSW/ Sydney
ACT/ Canberra










Brisbane Underground Bus and
Train
Toowoomba to Port of Brisbane
and Toowoomba bypass
Southern Freight Rail Corridor
(Bromelton to Ebenezer)
Corridor around western
Brisbane - Beaudesert to
Gympie (including Strathpine to
Everton Park to Indooroopilly
High speed rail
M9 around western Sydney
Western Sydney Freight Rail
Corridor
West Connex (M4 principally)
Sydney – Newcastle
Kingsford Smith to CBD rail
South West Rail Link extension
Newcastle – Newcastle Airport
High speed rail
High speed rail




Victoria/
Melbourne






Melbourne Metro
Outer Metropolitan Transport
Corridor (including Western
Interstate Freight Terminal)
Land transport to Hastings
Bay West
Tullamarine Airport
High speed rail
Tasmania/ Hobart
South Australia/
Adelaide

Northern Connector
Northern
Territory/ Darwin

Access to Port of Darwin
Western
Australia/ Perth



Kwinana Freeway
Perth Darwin national highway
Rail corridor to Perth airport
Parramatta-BankstownHurstville
Portion of road corridor to
NSW south coast
Barton Highway


Launceston to Burnie

Adelaide rail by-pass

Cross metropolitan public
transport corridor
(Directions 2031 suggests
three possible corridors –
Fremantle to Cannington
and Cannington to Stirling
via UWA and Cannington
to Stirling via Morley)
Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy
Page 31