Rockhampton Regional Council
Planning Assumptions Report
Version 2, June 2014
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary
This Planning Assumptions Report (PAR) contains the planning assumptions and growth projections
underpinning the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) prepared by Rockhampton Regional Council.
This Planning Assumptions Report (PAR) has been scoped to:
•
•
•
document the methodology and assumptions used to prepare the Planning Assumptions
Model (PAM), dwelling, population, gross floor area (GFA) and employment planning
assumptions and the timing of development (development sequence);
present and discuss dwelling, population, GFA, employment projections and development
sequence; and
identify the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA);
The planning assumptions are critical elements underpinning the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP).
Their purpose is to provide a logical and consistent basis for detailed infrastructure planning within
network catchments and state assumptions about the type, scale, location and timing of future
development and subsequent population and employment growth. The PAR applies to all land
within the boundaries of Rockhampton Regional Council (as set out within the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme), and demonstrates how the strategic outcomes of the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme are to be implemented at the local level. The planning period for the PAR is 17
years to 2031.
Methodology
To guide the process of developing planning assumptions for the Rockhampton Regional Council PIP,
a detailed, robust and transparent methodology has been adopted consisting of seven key steps. The
seven steps are;
Step 1 – Existing Land Use and Development Assumptions
Step 2 – Future Land Use Assumptions
Step 3 – Ultimate Development Capacity Analysis
Step 4 – Development Sequencing Analysis
Step 5 – Priority Infrastructure Area
Step 6 – Growth Projections
Step 7 – Planning Assumptions Report
The Rockhampton region resident population growth projections are benchmarked against
Queensland Government 2008 High Series population projections. Residential development
sequencing and population growth projections are guided by the sub-regional allocation of
population growth for the former Rockhampton City, Fitzroy and Mount Morgan Local Government
areas.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page i
Priority Infrastructure Area
The Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) identifies sufficient land to accommodate forecast growth to 30
June 2031. The PIA is a two dimensional extent consisting of multiple geographically discreet areas
and is to read in combination with development sequencing assumptions detailed in Appendix L. The
PIA is shown in Appendix M.
Population
As of 30 June 2012, the estimated resident population (ERP) of the Rockhampton region is modelled
in the PAM to be 83,992 persons with a non-resident population (NRP) of 4,958 persons and a total
population (ERP plus NRP) of 88,951 persons. By 2031, it is projected that the total population will
be 118,630 persons. As shown in Figure E.1, the resident population of the Rockhampton Regional
Council (RRC) area is projected in the PAM to grow slightly above the 2008 High Series population
projection and somewhat in line with 2013 High Series population projection.
At a sub-regional level, the Mount Morgan area is projected to grow in line with 2008 Medium Series
population projections and Rockhampton City and Fitzroy areas are projected to grow above 2008
Medium Series population projections.
A summary of population projections at a sub-regional scale is shown in Table E.1. A summary of
population inside and outside the PIA is shown in Table E.2.
120,000
Persons
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008 Medium Series ERP Projection
2013 Medium Series ERP Projection
2008 High Series ERP Projection
2013 High Series ERP Projection
PAM ERP Projection
Figure E.1 - Planning Assumptions Model and Queensland Government ERP Projections
Page ii | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2031
Table E.1 - Planning Assumptions Model and Queensland Government ERP Projection Comparison
2012
(Existing)
Rockhampton City
Area
Fitzroy Area
2031
70,654
75,473
79,950
82,670
2008 Medium Series Projection
67,430
69,436
71,771
73,885
75,930
Planning Assumptions Model
-1,424
(-2.1%)
14,828
1,218
(1.8%)
17,952
3,702
(5.2%)
19,500
6,065
(8.2%)
22,332
6,740
(8.9%)
23,974
2008 Medium Series Projection
13,707
15,036
16,401
17,871
19,361
1,121
(8.2%)
3,159
2,916
(19.4%)
3,176
3,099
(18.9%)
3,176
4,461
(25%)
3,176
4,613
(23.8%)
3,325
3,407
3,468
3,543
3,617
3,679
Planning Assumptions Model
-248
(-7.3%)
83,992
-292
(-8.4%)
91,782
-367
(-10.4%)
98,149
-441
(-12.2%)
105,458
-354
(-9.6%)
109,969
2008 High Series Projection
85,805
90,122
94,936
99,683
104,393
Planning Assumptions Model
-1,813
(-2.1%)
118,729
1,660
(1.8%)
133,038
3,213
(3.4%)
142,664
5,775
(5.8%)
156,366
5,576
(5.3%)
166,422
2008 High Series Projection
123,409
131,714
142,343
153,483
164,745
-4,680
(-3.8%)
1,324
(1%)
321
(0.2%)
2,883
(1.9%)
1,677
(1%)
Difference
2008 Medium Series Projection
Difference
Difference
Former RRC LGA
(Including Livingstone
Shire Council Area)
2026
66,006
Planning Assumptions Model
RRC LGA
2021
Planning Assumptions Model
Difference
Mount Morgan Area
2016
Difference
Growth
Rate % ^
RRC Growth
Share %
(2012-2031)
1.2%
64.1%
2.6%
35.2%
0.3%
0.6%
1.4%
100.0%
1.8%
^Average annual population growth rate between 2012 and 2031
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page iii
Table E.2 - Population Summary
2012
(Existing)
Total ERP in PIA
2016
2021
2026
2031
74,545
82,037
88,288
95,131
99,643
Total ERP Outside PIA
9,447
9,744
9,861
10,327
10,327
Total Non-Resident Population
4,958
5,902
7,140
7,900
8,660
88,951
97,683
105,289
113,357
118,630
Total RRC Population Projection (ERP plus NRP)
Page iv | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Employment
As of 30 June 2012, the number of employed persons in urban based employment in the
Rockhampton region is modelled in the PAM to be 34,036. By 2031, it is projected that the total
urban based employment in the Rockhampton Region will be 60,783 persons. Figure E.2 below
shows a comparison between employment and population projections (ERP plus NRP).
140,000
120,000
Persons
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011
2016
2021
RRC Population Projection (ERP plus NRP)
2026
2031
RRC Employment Projection
Figure E.2 - RRC Population and Employment Projections
A summary of employment projections at a sub-regional scale and inside and outside the PIA is
shown in Table E.3. Employment projections for sub-regional areas are shown in Figure E.3.
Table E.3 - Employment Projection Summary
2012
2016
2021
(Existing)
Employment Projection by Sub-Regional Area
Rockhampton City Area Employment
31,538
37,170
41,150
Fitzroy Area Employment
1,908
2,968
5,954
Mount Morgan Area Employment
590
590
590
Employment Projection Summary
Total Employment in PIA
33,106
39,798
46,722
Total Employment Outside PIA
929
929
971
Total RRC Employment
34,036
40,728
47,694
2026
2031
44,292
10,545
590
46,298
13,895
590
54,385
1,042
55,427
59,741
1,042
60,783
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page v
50,000
45,000
40,000
Employees
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2011
2016
2021
Rockhampton City Area Employment
2026
2031
Fitzroy Area Employment
Mount Morgan Area Employment
Figure E.3 - Employment Projections for Sub-Regional Areas
As shown in Figure E.4, it is projected that retail and industrial development will drive employment
growth, with steady growth in commercial based employment.
30,000
25,000
Employees
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2011
2016
Retail
Commercial
2021
Industrial
2026
Community Purposes
Figure E.4 - Employment Projections by Employment Category
Page vi | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2031
Achieved Density
A comparison of the maximum possible dwelling per hectare yield and the average dwelling yield
achieved in the PAM on residential greenfield land (> 2,500m2) is shown in Table E.4.
Table E.4 - Comparison Between Maximum Possible Dwelling Yield and Average Achieved Dwelling
Yield for Greenfield Residential Land
QPP Residential Zone
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
Emerging community
Rural residential
Maximum Possible
Yield (dwellings/ha
of net developable
area)
15.3
17.4
610.0
15.3
0.5
Average Yield
Achieved in PAM
(dwellings/ha of net
developable area)
11.7
16.0
610.0
11.3
0.5
Average
Achieved Lot
Size Per
Dwelling (m2)
855
625
16
883
20,000
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page vii
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.
SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT .............................................................................................................. 1
THE ROCKHAMPTON REGION ....................................................................................................................... 1
ROLE AND PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 2
ROLE AND PURPOSE OF THE PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA ............................................................................ 2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
OVERARCHING PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2
STEP 1 – EXISTING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Existing Dwellings ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Existing Resident and Non-Resident Population ............................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Existing Gross Floor Area .................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.4 Existing Employment......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3
STEP 2 – FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................... 9
2.4
STEP 3 – ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 10
2.4.1 Development Constraints................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.2 Internal Non-Developable Area Assumptions for Greenfield Land ................................................. 13
2.4.3 Development Density Assumptions................................................................................................. 14
2.4.4 Development Application and Approvals ........................................................................................ 14
2.4.5 Ultimate Dwelling Capacity ............................................................................................................ 15
2.4.6 Ultimate Population Capacity ......................................................................................................... 16
2.4.7 Ultimate Gross Floor Area Capacity ................................................................................................ 17
2.4.8 Ultimate Employment Capacity ...................................................................................................... 18
2.5
STEP 4 – DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 20
2.5.1 Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.5.2 Sub-Regional Allocation of Resident Population Growth ................................................................ 21
2.5.3 Development Probability Analysis .................................................................................................. 22
2.5.4 Residential Development Sequencing ............................................................................................. 25
2.5.5 Non-Residential Development Sequencing ..................................................................................... 25
2.5.6 Sequencing Ground-Truthing .......................................................................................................... 26
2.6
STEP 5 – PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA ................................................................................................... 27
2.7
STEP 6 – GROWTH PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................................ 28
2.8
STEP 7 – PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS REPORT .................................................................................................. 29
3.
CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY ROCKHAMPTON PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA........................ 30
3.1
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1 Lot 1/RP613177 (Former CSIRO Site) .............................................................................................. 31
3.1.2 Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton Site) ........................................................................................ 31
3.2
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ...................................................................................................................... 32
3.3
SEQUENCING ........................................................................................................................................... 32
4.
DWELLING AND POPULATION PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 33
4.1
ESTIMATED RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT POPULATION ................................................................................. 33
4.2
BASE YEAR (2012)................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.2 Dwellings......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.3
GROWTH PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 37
Page viii | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.3.1 2016 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.2 2021 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 39
4.3.3 2026 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.4 2031 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 43
4.4
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 45
5.
GROSS FLOOR AREA AND EMPLOYMENT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................... 59
5.1
BASE YEAR (2012)................................................................................................................................... 59
5.1.1 Employment .................................................................................................................................... 59
5.1.2 Gross Floor Area.............................................................................................................................. 59
5.2
GROWTH PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 60
5.2.1 2016 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 60
5.2.2 2021 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 61
5.2.3 2026 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 62
5.2.4 2031 Projection ............................................................................................................................... 63
5.3
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 64
6.
PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA...................................................................................................... 75
7.
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 76
7.1
7.2
7.3
POPULATION ........................................................................................................................................... 76
EMPLOYMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 80
ACHIEVED DENSITY ................................................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A
DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS TABLE
APPENDIX B
ZONING
APPENDIX C
PRECINCTS
APPENDIX D
BUILDING HEIGHTS
APPENDIX E
PAM REPORTING AREAS
APPENDIX F
CONSTRAINTS
APPENDIX G
ULTIMATE DWELLING CAPACITY
APPENDIX H
ULTIMATE POPULATION CAPACITY
APPENDIX I
ULTIMATE GFA CAPACITY
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page ix
APPENDIX J
ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY
APPENDIX K
DEVELOPMENT PROBABILITY
APPENDIX L
DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDIX M
PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA
Page x | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Table Index
TABLE 1 - DWELLING AND POPULATION REPORTING CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDING QPP USE DEFINITIONS ........................... 5
TABLE 2 - EXISTING DWELLING OCCUPANCY RATE ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 6
TABLE 3 - GFA AND EMPLOYMENT REPORTING CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDING QPP USE DEFINITIONS ................................. 7
TABLE 4 - QPP USE DEFINITIONS AND EMPLOYEE TO GFA RATIO ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................... 8
TABLE 5 - DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................................... 11
TABLE 6 - INTERNAL NON-DEVELOPABLE AREA ASSUMPTIONS FOR GREENFIELD LAND ............................................................ 13
TABLE 7 - ULTIMATE DWELLING OCCUPANCY RATE ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 16
TABLE 8 - QPP ZONES AND EMPLOYEE TO GFA RATIO ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................. 18
TABLE 9 - DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE TIMEFRAMES .......................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 10 - DEVELOPMENT PROBABILITY ANALYSIS CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 23
TABLE 11 - CQU PDA DWELLING OCCUPANCY RATE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................... 30
TABLE 12 - ASSUMED DWELLING GROWTH ON LOT 1/RP613177 (FORMER CSIRO SITE) ...................................................... 31
TABLE 13 - ASSUMED POPULATION GROWTH ON LOT 1/RP613177 (FORMER CSIRO SITE) ................................................... 31
TABLE 14 - ASSUMED DWELLING GROWTH ON LOT 70/LN2378 (CQU ROCKHAMPTON SITE) ................................................ 31
TABLE 15 - ASSUMED POPULATION GROWTH ON LOT 70/LN2378 (CQU ROCKHAMPTON SITE) ............................................. 31
TABLE 16 - CQU PDA EMPLOYEE TO GFA RATIO ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................... 32
TABLE 17 - ASSUMED GFA (M2) GROWTH ON LOT 70/LN2378 (CQU ROCKHAMPTON SITE) ................................................. 32
TABLE 18 - ASSUMED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ON LOT 70/LN2378 (CQU ROCKHAMPTON SITE) ........................................... 32
TABLE 19 - EXISTING AND PROJECTED DWELLINGS ........................................................................................................... 47
TABLE 20 - EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION ......................................................................................................... 52
TABLE 21 - EXISTING AND PROJECTED NON-RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (M2) ............................................................... 65
TABLE 22 - EXISTING AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 70
TABLE 23 - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS MODEL AND QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT ERP PROJECTION COMPARISON ....................... 78
TABLE 24 - POPULATION SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 79
TABLE 25 – QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT ERP PROJECTION SUMMARY ............................................................................... 79
TABLE 26 - EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 80
TABLE 27 - SUB-REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUB-REGIONAL ERP ............................................................ 82
TABLE 28 - COMPARISON BETWEEN MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DWELLING YIELD AND AVERAGE ACHIEVED DWELLING YIELD FOR
GREENFIELD RESIDENTIAL LAND ........................................................................................................................... 83
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page xi
Figure Index
FIGURE 1 – EXISTING (2012) ERP INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA .............................................................................. 34
FIGURE 2 - EXISTING (2012) DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ....................................... 35
FIGURE 3 - EXISTING (2012) DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA .................................................... 36
FIGURE 4 - EXISTING (2012) TO 2016 POPULATION GROWTH (ERP) INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ................................ 37
FIGURE 5 - 2016 DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ....................................................... 38
FIGURE 6 - 2016 TO 2021 POPULATION GROWTH (ERP) INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ............................................... 39
FIGURE 7 - 2021 DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ....................................................... 40
FIGURE 8 - 2021 TO 2026 POPULATION GROWTH (ERP) INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ............................................... 41
FIGURE 9 - 2026 DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ....................................................... 42
FIGURE 10 - 2026 TO 2031 POPULATION GROWTH (ERP) INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ............................................. 43
FIGURE 11 - 2031 DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ..................................................... 44
FIGURE 12 - ULTIMATE POPULATION CAPACITY (ERP) BY REPORTING AREA (WHERE ERP > 500) ............................................ 45
FIGURE 13 - ULTIMATE DWELLING MIX WITHIN THE ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA ............................................... 46
FIGURE 14 - EXISTING (2012) URBAN BASED EMPLOYMENT INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA............................................ 59
FIGURE 15 - EXISTING (2012) TO 2016 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ..................................... 60
FIGURE 16 - 2016 TO 2021 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ..................................................... 61
FIGURE 17 - 2021 TO 2026 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ..................................................... 62
FIGURE 18 - 2026 TO 2031 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INSIDE THE PIA BY REPORTING AREA ..................................................... 63
FIGURE 19 - ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY BY REPORTING AREA (WHERE EMPLOYEES > 200) .......................................... 64
FIGURE 20 - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS MODEL AND QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT ERP PROJECTIONS ....................................... 76
FIGURE 21 - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS MODEL AND 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT SUB-REGIONAL ERP PROJECTIONS ......... 77
FIGURE 22 - ERP PROJECTIONS BY DWELLING TYPE ......................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 23 - RRC POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ....................................................................................... 80
FIGURE 24 - EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR SUB-REGIONAL AREAS .................................................................................. 81
FIGURE 25 - EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY ................................................................................ 81
Page xii | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms
Term
Definition
ABS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Base year
30 June 2012
CQU
Central Queensland University
ERP
The Estimated Resident Population is the estimated number of
persons whose principal place of residence is within the
Rockhampton Regional Council area.
Fitzroy Area
Former Fitzroy Shire Council area
GIA
Gracemere Industrial Area
Mount Morgan Area
Former Mount Morgan Shire Council area
Non-resident dwelling
Dwellings that contain non-resident population, including
hospitals, hotels, relocatable home parks, rooming
accommodation, short-term accommodation and tourist parks.
NRP
The Non-Resident Population is the estimated number of persons
who reside in non-resident accommodation, including hospitals,
hotels, relocatable home parks, rooming accommodation, shortterm accommodation and tourist parks.
PAM
Rockhampton Regional Council Planning Assumptions Model
PAR
Rockhampton Regional Council Planning Assumptions Report
PDA
Priority Development Area
PIA
Priority Infrastructure Area
PIP
Priority Infrastructure Plan
Projection cohort
Five year projection cohorts from 30 June
QPP
Queensland Planning Provisions
Resident dwelling
Dwellings that contain resident population, including dwelling
houses, dual occupancies, multiple dwellings, residential care
facilities and retirement facilities.
Rockhampton City Area
Former Rockhampton City Council area
RRC
Rockhampton Regional Council
Ultimate development
capacity
The maximum development yield planned for under the
Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme for land parcels having
regard to allowable uses, development densities, lot size, internal
road, park and drainage allowances, development constraints and
development approvals.
Urban based
employment
Employment within existing urban employment generating
development. It excludes rural and mining based employment not
located in an urban area or building.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page xiii
1.
Introduction
This Planning Assumptions Report (PAR) contains the planning assumptions and growth projections
underpinning the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) prepared by Rockhampton Regional Council.
This Planning Assumptions Report (PAR) has been scoped to:
•
•
•
1.1
1.2
document the methodology and assumptions used to prepare the Planning Assumptions
Model (PAM), dwelling, population, gross floor area (GFA) and employment planning
assumptions and the timing of development (development sequence);
present and discuss dwelling, population, GFA, employment projections and development
sequence; and
identify the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA);
Short Title and Commencement
1.
This document may be cited as the Rockhampton Regional Council Planning
Assumptions Report Version 2, 2014 (the PAR).
2.
The PAR informs the Priority Infrastructure Plan which forms Part 4 of the Rockhampton
Region Planning Scheme.
The Rockhampton Region
Located in the heart of Central Queensland, the Rockhampton Region is located approximately
600km north of Brisbane, and approximately 300km south of Mackay. The region spans an area of
approximately 6,600km2 with the City of Rockhampton as a main service centre for the Central
Queensland region. The Rockhampton region is strategically located at the junction of the Bruce,
Capricorn and Burnett Highways, between Gladstone to the south, Mackay to the north and Emerald
to the west. The Rockhampton Region includes the three main urban areas of Rockhampton,
Gracemere and Mount Morgan, significant rural areas (including townships), and national parks.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 1
1.3
Role and Purpose of the Planning Assumptions
The planning assumptions are critical elements underpinning the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP).
Their purpose is to provide a logical and consistent basis for detailed infrastructure planning within
network catchments and state assumptions about the type, scale, location and timing of future
development and subsequent population and employment growth. Combined with the desired
standards of service they assist in the development of the plans for trunk infrastructure and form
the basis for the calculation of infrastructure charges and additional infrastructure cost assessments.
The PAR underpins the Priority Infrastructure Plan and has been drafted in accordance with the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and SPA Statutory Guideline 01/11. The PAR applies to all land
within the boundaries of Rockhampton Regional Council (as set out within the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme), and demonstrates how the strategic outcomes of the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme are to be implemented at the local level. This includes how Council proposes to
achieve strategic dwelling targets and other key population and employment development policies
identified in the strategic plan.
The planning period for the PAR is 17 years to 2031. This long term planning is required to provide
for the most efficient and effective development of identified land and the provision of future
infrastructure.
1.4
Role and Purpose of the Priority Infrastructure Area
The Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) details Rockhampton Regional Council’s intent to sequence the
supply of trunk infrastructure to accommodate anticipated urban development over the next 17
years in the most efficient way. The PIA is a two dimensional extent and is to be read in combination
with development sequencing assumptions (Section 2.5). The PIA includes infill and redevelopment
areas located inside the PIA that are not sequenced to develop by 2031 and are therefore outside
the PIA.
Page 2 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.
Methodology
2.1
Overarching Process
To guide the process of developing planning assumptions for the Rockhampton Regional Council PIP,
a detailed, robust and transparent methodology has been adopted consisting of seven key steps. The
seven steps are;
Step 1 – Existing Land Use and Development Assumptions
Step 2 – Future Land Use Assumptions
Step 3 – Ultimate Development Capacity Analysis
Step 4 – Development Sequencing Analysis
Step 5 – Priority Infrastructure Area
Step 6 – Growth Projections
Step 7 – Planning Assumptions Report
The final deliverables of this process are a land parcel based GIS model (referred to in this report as
the Planning Assumptions Model (PAM)) and the Planning Assumptions Report (PAR). The PAM was
developed using ESRI ArcGIS and examined existing land use and development, modelled projected
future dwelling, population, GFA and employment growth and calculated the ultimate development
capacity of the Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme (including consideration of planning scheme
provisions and planning scheme overlay constraints, existing land uses and development approvals).
The methodology and assumptions for each step are contained in Sections 2.2 to 2.8.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 3
2.2
Step 1 – Existing Land Use and Development Assumptions
The first step in the PIP planning assumptions process is the establishment of existing land use and
development assumptions. Existing land use and development assumptions data are used:
•
•
•
to develop the base year (30 June 2012) dwelling, population, Gross Floor Area (GFA) and
employment assumptions;
for comparison to the development capacity analysis to identify land which is entirely
developed; and
for adjusting development capacity data where existing development exceeds calculated
development capacity (e.g. development with a higher yield than allowed for under the
Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme).
Land use and development assumptions data is underpinned by RRC rating land use data classified
by Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) land valuation land use codes. For the
purposes of the PAR and PAM, land uses are reclassified into corresponding Queensland Planning
Provisions (QPP) use type definitions (e.g. Single Unit Dwelling reclassified to Dwelling House, Drive
in Shopping Centre reclassified to Shopping Centre). Identified errors and gaps in RRC data were
corrected through desktop analysis, including a review of 2010 aerial photography and use of Google
Street View.
Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 outline the methodology and assumptions utilised in the development of
existing dwelling, population, GFA and employment assumptions.
Page 4 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.2.1
Existing Dwellings
Existing dwelling houses, dual occupancies, multiple dwellings and other dwellings are identified
utilising corrected QPP classified land use data. Table 1 shows the reporting categories and the
corresponding QPP use definitions for dwellings and population. Land parcels with a dwelling house
land use record are assigned one single dwelling in the PAM. Land parcels with a dual occupancy
land use record are assigned one dual occupancy dwelling per Group Title or Building Unit Plan lot
(excluding common land). Where a dual occupancy is on one land parcel, two semi-attached
dwellings are assigned to the land parcel in the PAM. Land parcels with a multiple dwelling land use
record are assigned one multiple dwelling per Group Title or Building Unit Plan lot (excluding
common or non-residential land) or for multiple dwellings on one land parcel, the number of
multiple dwellings are identified using drive-by survey or Google Street View. Multiple dwellings are
assumed to be equivalent two bedroom dwelling units.
The number of other dwellings on land parcels with Tourist Park, Relocatable Home Park, Short-term
Accommodation, Hotel, Rooming Accommodation and Hospital land uses are based on the number
of beds, sites or units identified through drive-by survey, internet research or telephone contact. The
captured data is converted in to the equivalent two bedroom other dwelling units (e.g. 50 shortterm accommodation beds are converted in to 25 other dwelling units) and assigned to land parcels
in the PAM.
Where existing dwellings extend over a number of land parcels, the number of dwellings is equally
split over the land parcels (e.g. one dwelling house over two land parcels is split, with each land
parcel given 0.5 dwellings).
Table 1 - Dwelling and Population Reporting Categories and Corresponding QPP Use Definitions
Reporting Category
QPP Use Definition
Dwelling House
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Multiple Dwelling, Residential Care Facility, Retirement Facility
Other Dwelling
Hospital, Hotel, Relocatable Home Park, Rooming
Accommodation, Short-term Accommodation, Tourist Park
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 5
2.2.2
Existing Resident and Non-Resident Population
The existing resident population is calculated using the existing number of dwellings in the Dwelling
House, Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling reporting categories multiplied by the dwelling
occupancy rates contained in Table 2. Dwelling occupancy rates are based on the 2006 and 2011 ABS
Censuses at a sub-regional level to reflect sub-regional variances. Of note, is the low dwelling
occupancy rate within dwelling houses in Mount Morgan indicating lower occupancy or alternatively
higher vacancy rates.
The existing non-resident population is calculated using the existing number of dwellings in the
Other Dwelling reporting category multiplied by the dwelling occupancy rates contained in Table 2.
Populations in Relocatable Home Parks are split 50% resident and 50% non-resident.
Table 2 - Existing Dwelling Occupancy Rate Assumptions
Reporting
Category
Dwelling Conversion
Rate
Dwelling Occupancy Rates
Rockhampton
City
Fitzroy
Mount
Morgan
Dwelling House
Persons per dwelling
2.7
2.9
2.0
Dual Occupancy
Persons per dwelling unit
1.7
1.7
1.7
Multiple
Dwelling
Persons per two bedroom
equivalent multiple
dwelling unit
1.6
1.6
1.6
Other Dwelling
Persons per dwelling unit
or number of beds (two
bedroom multiple
dwelling equivalent)
1.6
1.6
1.6
Page 6 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.2.3
Existing Gross Floor Area
Existing retail, commercial, industrial and community purposes gross floor area (GFA) is calculated
using reclassified and corrected land use data and digitised building footprint data and multiplied by
identified levels of GFA (e.g. building footprint of 1,000m2 multiplied by 2 levels of GFA equals
2,000m2 GFA). Levels of GFA exclude underground or under storey car parking.
Table 3 details the reporting categories and the corresponding QPP use definitions for GFA and
employment.
Table 3 - GFA and Employment Reporting Categories and Corresponding QPP Use Definitions
Reporting Category
QPP Use Definition
Retail
Food and Drink Outlet, Garden Centre, Hotel, Nightclub
Entertainment Facility, Outdoor Sales, Service Industry, Service
Station, Shop, Shopping Centre, Showroom, Theatre, Tourist
Attraction
Commercial
Funeral Parlour, Office, Short-term Accommodation
Industrial
Extractive Industry, High Impact Industry, Low Impact Industry,
Marine Industry, Medium Impact Industry, Research and
Technology Industry, Transport Depot, Warehouse
Community Purposes
Air Services, Child Care Centre, Club, Community Use, Detention
Facility, Educational Establishment, Emergency Services, Hospital,
Place of Worship, Residential Care Facility
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 7
2.2.4
Existing Employment
Existing employment is calculated based on existing GFA divided by the employee to GFA ratios
contained in Table 4. Employee to GFA ratio assumptions are informed by a business survey of
businesses across the Rockhampton region capturing the number of employees for comparison with
captured GFA. Employee to GFA ratios are also informed by the ABS Retail Industry Survey 1998-99 1
which contains GFA and employee data to allow the calculation of employee to GFA ratios for retail
land uses.
Table 4 - QPP Use Definitions and Employee to GFA Ratio Assumptions
QPP Use Definition
1
Employee to GFA Ratio
Detention Facility, Nightclub Entertainment Facility, Rooming
Accommodation, Shop, Shopping Centre
35m2 GFA/employee
Air Services, Child Care Centre, Emergency Services, Funeral
Parlour, Hospital, Service Industry, Showroom, Theatre
50m2 GFA/employee
Garden Centre, Low Impact Industry, Marine Industry, Outdoor
Sales, Research and Technology Industry, Service Station,
Transport Depot, Warehouse
100m2 GFA/employee
Food and Drink Outlet
15m2 GFA/employee
Hotel
150m2 GFA/employee
Residential Care Facility, Short-term Accommodation
300m2 GFA/employee
Office
25m2 GFA/employee
Educational Establishment, Extractive Industry, Medium Impact
Industry, Tourist Attraction
120m2 GFA/employee
High Impact Industry
150m2 GFA/employee
Cemetery, Club, Community Use, Park, Place of Worship
250m2 GFA/employee
8622.0 – Retail Industry, Australia, 1998-99
Page 8 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.3
Step 2 – Future Land Use Assumptions
The second step in the Planning Assumptions process is the determination of future land uses and
development assumptions based on the QPP zones and Strategic Framework Settlement Pattern
Maps of the Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme. Land use zoning is shown in Appendix B.
Precinct boundaries are shown in Appendix C.
Future land use and development assumptions data are used:
•
•
to develop land use and development density assumptions for QPP zones; and
to identify and utilise broad development sequencing contained in QPP zones and the
Strategic Framework Settlement Pattern Maps.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 9
2.4
Step 3 – Ultimate Development Capacity Analysis
The third step in the PIP Planning Assumptions process is the calculation of ultimate development
capacity for dwellings, population, Gross Floor Area (GFA) and employment. Ultimate development
capacity refers to the maximum development yield planned for under the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme for land parcels having regard to allowable uses, development densities, lot size,
internal road, park and drainage allowances, development constraints and development approvals.
Ultimate development capacity data is used:
•
•
•
•
•
to determine the development yield of infill and greenfield residential and non-residential
land;
to determine land requirements for growth;
to inform development sequencing and determination of a Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA);
for comparison to existing development to identify land that is fully developed; and
as one input to a test of a development’s consistency with the PIP assumptions.
Sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.8 document the methodology and assumptions utilised in the calculation of
ultimate development capacity for dwellings, population, GFA and employment.
2.4.1
Development Constraints
Ultimate development capacity analysis is informed by mapping and analysis of a range of
development constraints. The aim of this methodology is to determine the areas of land subject to
different types of constraints. Each development constraint is considered individually in regard to its
varying impact on development yield. The percentage loss in yield ranges from completely
constrained areas that are not suitable for urban development to a reduced yield of 50%, 60% and
80%. As a working example, in a constrained area with a 60% development yield in a Low Density
Residential zone, development yield would be 9.18 dwellings/ha of net developable area (60% of
15.3 dwellings/ha of net developable area).
Constraint analysis is undertaken at a land parcel level with each land parcel area split in to the areas
of completely constrained, 50% development yield, 60% development yield and 80% development
yield and populated in the PAM to form part of the ultimate development capacity calculation
process. The unconstrained land area is then calculated in the PAM by subtracting the combined
constraint area from the total parcel area.
Table 5 shows the list of constraints and their assumed impact on development yield. The mapping
of the constraint areas is shown in Appendix F. The constraint areas contained in Appendix F predate
final engagement and drafting of the planning scheme. As such, the constraint areas may have been
changed in the final draft of the planning scheme since the constraints contained in the PAM were
finalised. Unless there are substantial changes to the constraint areas which may influence the
results of the model, the PAM will not be run again (in its current iteration) to incorporate constraint
area updates. Any changed constraint areas will be incorporated into the next iteration of the PAM
(and PAR) to inform the next planning scheme.
Page 10 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Table 5 - Development Constraint Assumptions
Development
Constraint
Map
Reference
Assumed Impact on Development
Yield
Biodiversity Areas of
Ecological
Significance
Map DC-BAES
High Ecological Significance - No
development yield
Areas of Ecological
Significance, DERM
2009
Biodiversity Corridors
Map DC-BC
Corridors - No development yield
Biodiversity Waterways
Map DC-BWw
Waterways - No development yield
Biodiversity Wetlands
Map DC-BWt
• High Ecological Significance (HES) No development yield
• HES Buffer - No development yield
• General Ecological Significance
(GES) - 50% development yield
• GES Buffer - 50% development
yield
• Medium Bushfire Hazard Area 60% development yield
• High Bushfire Hazard Area - No
development yield
• Medium Coastal Hazard Area - 80%
development yield
• High Coastal Hazard Area - 80%
development yield
DCDB Parcel Type: Road, Intersection
or Water - No development yield
Areas of Ecological
Significance, DERM
2009
Vegetation
Management Plan
2010 & RRC
(Buffers)
Areas of Ecological
Significance, DERM
2009
Bushfire Hazard
Map DC-BH
Coastal
Protection Hazard Areas
Map DC-CP
DCDB Parcel
Type
Map DC-PT
Extractive
Resources
Map DC-ER
Land within Extractive Resources
Overlay - No development yield
Flood Hazard
Map DC-FH
• Extreme Flood Hazard - No
development yield
• High Flood Hazard - No
development yield
• Medium Flood Hazard - No
development yield
Industrial and
Landfill Buffer
Map DC-ILB
Land within Buffer - No development
yield
Data Source
RRC, 2013 (based
on LIDAR 2010)
Coastal
Management Plan,
2012
DERM Digital
Cadastral Database
Queensland
Government KRA,
2012
- Aurecon Fitzroy
River Flood Study
2012
- Aurecon
Gracemere
Catchments Flood
Study 2013
- GHD Limestone
Creek Flood Study
2007
RRC Planning
Scheme Industrial
Zones and Landfill
Sites
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 11
Development
Constraint
Map
Reference
Assumed Impact on Development
Yield
Land Use
Map DC-LU
Reclassified from
DERM Land Use
Valuation Codes
Landslide
Hazard
Queensland
Heritage
Register
Tenure
Map DC-LH
QPP Existing Land Use: Park,
Cemetery, Community Use, Place of
Worship, Defence Force, Hospital,
Educational Establishment, Emergency
Services, Correctional Facility, Utility
Installation - No development yield
Land Slope ≥15% - 50% development
yield
Land on Queensland Heritage Register
- No development yield
DCDB Tenure Code: CA, CV, FD, FR,
HM, LL, MT, MP, MR, NP, PH, PP, RE,
RY, SF, TR, TP, WR - No development
yield
Land within Water Resource
Catchments - 50% development yield
DERM Digital
Cadastral Database
Water
Resource
Catchments
Map DC-QHR
Map DC-T
Map DC-WRC
Data Source
RRC, 2013 (based
on LIDAR 2010)
Qld Heritage
Register 2013
RRC & Vegetation
Management Plan
2010
Page 12 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.4.2
Internal Non-Developable Area Assumptions for Greenfield Land
Ultimate development capacity analysis of greenfield land is informed by consideration and
allowance for land area required for internal roads, parks and drainage. The percentage of land
assigned to internal roads, parks and drainage varies depending on the zone and minimum lot size.
Internal roads, parks and drainage area assumptions are contained in Table 6.
Internal road percentages are informed by Economic Development Queensland’s (EDQ) Practice
Notes. Allowances for internal roads, parks and drainage are made for unconstrained land and land
with a reduced yield constraint. It is assumed that a percentage of park and drainage area can be
provided in any completely constrained land area (e.g. drainage within the 30m waterway buffer).
The calculation of internal roads, parks and drainage allowances are undertaken at a land parcel
level and populated in to the PAM.
Table 6 - Internal Non-Developable Area Assumptions for Greenfield Land
QPP Zone
Internal Road %
Parks / Drainage %
Low Density Residential
30%
5%
Low-Medium Density Residential
25%
5%
Low Impact Industry
35%
2%
Medium Impact Industry
20%
2%
High Impact Industry
20%
2%
Waterfront and Marine Industry
20%
2%
Emerging Community
30%
5%
Rural Residential
20%
5%
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 13
2.4.3
Development Density Assumptions
Ultimate development capacity analysis is based on development density assumptions for each
Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme zone and precinct including allowable uses within a zone,
mixture of uses, building height, levels of GFA and minimum lot size for greenfield and infill land.
Where it is assumed that multiple and other dwellings are integrated in to a mixed use development,
density assumptions are calculated based on the residential split of ultimate GFA divided by the
assumed GFA per dwelling to produce the number of dwellings. Appendix A contains the land use
and density assumption table. This table shows for each zone and precinct, use definition types,
building height, levels of GFA, minimum lot size and density assumptions. Development density
assumptions are applied to the pre-calculated developable area of land and are negatively adjusted
based on internal road, park and drainage and development constraint assumptions. Therefore, the
development density assumptions shown in Appendix A are the maximum possible density.
The land use assumptions contained in Appendix A predate final engagement and drafting of the
planning scheme. As such, zone provisions may have been changed in the final draft of the planning
scheme since the provisions in Appendix A were finalised. Unless the changes substantially influence
the strategic settlement pattern and PIA the PAM will not be run again (in its current iteration) to
incorporate provision updates. Any changed zone provisions will be incorporated into the next
iteration of the PAM (and PAR) to inform the next planning scheme.
2.4.4
Development Application and Approvals
Ultimate development capacity analysis considered development approvals (Material Change of Use
or Reconfiguration of a Lot, including Preliminary Approvals) within their currency period up to
December 2012. Development approval information was sourced from the RRC development
approval system and where required, additional details on the approved number of lots, dwellings or
GFA was obtained through a search and retrieval of individual development approvals.
Page 14 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.4.5
Ultimate Dwelling Capacity
This task involves the calculation of the dwelling yield permissible under the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme for land parcels as part of the ultimate development capacity calculation process.
Ultimate dwelling capacity is calculated at a land parcel level through the multiplication of
unconstrained, 50% development yield, 60% development yield and 80% development yield
constraint land area by development density assumptions. This includes allowances for internal
roads, parks and drainage. Any area of land unsuitable for urban development because of a
particular development constraint is excluded from the calculation process. In formula form, the
calculation of ultimate dwelling capacity is shown below.
The total number of ultimate dwellings is apportioned based on the assumed dwelling split in the
density assumptions in Appendix A (e.g. 80% Dwelling House, 10% Dual Occupancy, 10% Multiple
Dwelling) and populated in to the PAM. Ultimate dwelling capacity is adjusted on land with a
development approval to reflect the number of approved dwellings by dwelling type. Where the
number of existing dwellings exceeds the calculated ultimate dwelling capacity, the ultimate
dwelling capacity is adjusted to reflect the existing number of dwellings.
Ultimate Dwelling Capacity Formulas:
Unconstrained Development Yield =
Unconstrained Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A)
80% Development Yield =
80% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.8
60% Development Yield =
60% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.6
50% Development Yield =
50% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.5
Ultimate Dwelling Capacity =
Unconstrained Development Yield + 80% Development Yield + 60%
Development Yield + 50% Development Yield
The findings from the ultimate dwelling capacity analysis are shown in Appendix G.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 15
2.4.6
Ultimate Population Capacity
Ultimate population capacity is calculated at a land parcel level through the multiplication of the
ultimate dwelling capacity and the dwelling occupancy rate assumptions shown in Table 7. Where
the ultimate dwelling capacity is equal to the number of existing dwellings, the occupancy rates in
Table 2 are utilised.
The findings from the ultimate population capacity analysis are shown in Appendix H.
Table 7 - Ultimate Dwelling Occupancy Rate Assumptions
Reporting
Category
Dwelling Conversion
Rate
Dwelling Occupancy Rates
Rockhampton
City
Fitzroy
Mount
Morgan
Dwelling House
Persons per dwelling
2.6
2.8
2.3
Dual Occupancy
Persons per dwelling unit
1.7
1.7
1.7
Multiple
Dwelling
Persons per two bedroom
equivalent multiple
dwelling unit
1.6
1.6
1.6
Other Dwelling
Persons per dwelling unit
or number of beds (two
bedroom multiple
dwelling equivalent)
1.6
1.6
1.6
Page 16 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.4.7
Ultimate Gross Floor Area Capacity
This task involves the calculation of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) yield permissible under the
Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme for land parcels as part of the ultimate development capacity
calculation process. Ultimate GFA capacity is calculated at a land parcel level through the
multiplication of unconstrained, 50% development yield, 60% development yield and 80%
development yield constraint land area by development density assumptions. This includes
allowances for internal roads, parks and drainage. Any area of land unsuitable for urban
development because of a particular development constraint is excluded from the calculation
process. In formula form, the calculation of ultimate GFA capacity is shown below.
The total amount of ultimate GFA is apportioned based on the assumed GFA split in the density
assumptions in Appendix A (e.g. 60% commercial, 20% retail). Ultimate GFA capacity is adjusted on
land with a development approval to reflect the amount of approved GFA by GFA type. Where the
amount of existing GFA exceeds the calculated ultimate GFA capacity, the ultimate GFA capacity is
adjusted to reflect the existing amount of GFA.
Ultimate GFA Capacity Formulas:
Unconstrained Development Yield =
Unconstrained Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A)
80% Development Yield =
80% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.8
60% Development Yield =
60% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.6
50% Development Yield =
50% Yield Constraint Land Area × (1 – Internal Non-Developable Percentage (Table 6)) ×
Density Assumptions (Appendix A) × 0.5
Ultimate GFA Capacity =
Unconstrained Development Yield + 80% Development Yield + 60%
Development Yield + 50% Development Yield
The findings from the ultimate GFA capacity analysis are shown in Appendix I.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 17
2.4.8
Ultimate Employment Capacity
Ultimate employment capacity is calculated at a land parcel level through dividing the ultimate GFA
capacity by the employee to GFA ratio assumptions in Table 8. Employee to GFA ratios represent the
average employee to GFA ratios for retail, commercial, industrial and community purposes GFA and
are consistent with the employee to GFA ratios contained in Table 4. Where the ultimate GFA
capacity is equal to the amount of existing GFA, the employee to GFA ratios in Table 4 are utilised.
The findings from the ultimate employment capacity analysis are shown in Appendix J.
Table 8 - QPP Zones and Employee to GFA Ratio Assumptions
QPP Zone
Precinct
High Density Residential
Principal Centre
Business Services Precinct
Principal Centre
Core Precinct
Principal Centre
Denison Street Precinct
Principal Centre
Quay Street Precinct
Major Centre
District Centre
Category
Employee to GFA Ratio
Retail
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
30 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
30 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
30 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
30 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
35 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
30 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
Local Centre
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
Neighbourhood Centre
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Low Impact Industry
Industry
100 m2 GFA/Employee
Medium Impact Industry
Industry
120 m2 GFA/Employee
Industry
120 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
130 m2 GFA/Employee
High Impact Industry
Industry
150 m2 GFA/Employee
Special Industry
Industry
100 m2 GFA/Employee
Waterfront and Marine
Industry
Industry
150 m2 GFA/Employee
Medium Impact Industry
Gracemere Saleyards Precinct
Page 18 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
QPP Zone
Precinct
Special Purpose
Rockhampton Airport
Precinct ‐ Business Services
Sub‐Precinct
Special Purpose
CQU Rockhampton PDA
Specialised Centre
Gladstone Road and George
Street Precinct
Specialised Centre
Specialised Centre
Gladstone Road and George
Street Precinct - Outdoor
Sales and Services SubPrecinct
Gladstone Road and George
Street Precinct - Residential
and Food Services SubPrecinct
Category
Retail
Employee to GFA Ratio
100 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Community
50 m2 GFA/Employee
Purpose
Retail
35 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
60 m2 GFA/Employee
Industry
100 m2 GFA/Employee
Retail
60 m2 GFA/Employee
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Specialised Centre
Musgrave Street Precinct Mixed Use Sub-Precinct
Retail
Specialised Centre
Musgrave Street Precinct Outdoor Sales and Services
Sub-Precinct
Retail
60 m2 GFA/Employee
Industry
100 m2 GFA/Employee
Specialised Centre
Yaamba Road Precinct
Retail
60 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial 25 m2 GFA/Employee
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 19
2.5
Step 4 – Development Sequencing Analysis
The fourth step in the PIP Planning Assumptions process is the sequencing of development inside
and outside the PIA from 2012 to 2031 and beyond.
Development sequencing is undertaken at a land parcel level using timeframes contained and
described in Table 9. Development sequencing is used:
•
•
•
to determine the extent of the PIA;
to guide growth projections and the provision of trunk infrastructure; and
as one input to a test of a development’s consistency with the PIP assumptions.
Development sequencing is informed by development probability analysis which examines a range
of scored criteria to identify the order of future development from high to low probability. Sections
2.5.1 to 2.5.6 document the methodology and assumptions utilised in the development probability
analysis and the guiding principles for development sequencing.
Table 9 - Development Sequence Timeframes
Timing
Description
Existing
Applies to existing development at 2012. No further urban
development planned for under the Rockhampton Region Planning
Scheme.
Applies to existing dwellings in the Mount Morgan area, where it is
assumed that population growth will occur through an increase in
dwelling occupancy only.
Development begins after 30 June 2012 and is fully completed by 30
June 2016.
Staged development, part of the development begins after 30 June
2012 and is completed by 30 June 2016, but the balance of the
development is commenced and completed after 30 June 2016.
Development begins after 30 June 2016 and is fully completed by 30
June 2021.
Staged development, part of the development begins after 30 June
2016 and is completed by 30 June 2021, but the balance of the
development is commenced and completed after 30 June 2021.
Development begins after 30 June 2021 and is fully completed by 30
June 2026.
Development begins after 30 June 2026 and is fully completed by 30
June 2031.
Development begins after 30 June 2031. Development is beyond the
life of the Planning Scheme and is outside of the Priority
Infrastructure Area.
2012-2031
2016
2016+
2021
2021+
2026
2031
2031+
Page 20 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.5.1
Guiding Principles
Development sequencing is guided by a set of principles that are used consistently across the region
including:
•
•
•
•
2.5.2
advancing the purpose of SPA through sequencing urban development in areas where
adequate infrastructure exists or can be provided efficiently;
the sub-regional allocation of resident population growth throughout the Rockhampton
region;
sequencing of land to accommodate population growth in a diversity of housing choices to
meet housing needs (informed by the Rockhampton Regional Council Population
Distribution and Residential Development Study 2); and
sequencing of land to accommodate urban based employment growth through the
consideration of the employment needs to meet projected resident and non-resident
population growth (informed by Rockhampton Regional Council Economic Development and
Employment Study 3).
Sub-Regional Allocation of Resident Population Growth
The Rockhampton region resident population growth projections are benchmarked against
Queensland Government 2008 High Series population projections. The adoption of the 2008 High
Series population projections was a decision made by RRC in consideration of the following:
•
•
•
•
the recent historical and current rate of development is resulting in increased population
growth above Medium Series population projections in Rockhampton City and Fitzroy areas;
the extent and scale of residential development approvals across the Rockhampton region;
the core function of RRC as a lifestyle and service centre for the broader region which is
surrounded by regions of significant growth and development, including the mining and
resource communities of Isaac and Central Highlands Regional Councils and the LNG/port
focus of Gladstone Regional Council; and
the impact of continuing growth in the Bowen, Surat and Galilee Basins and around
Gladstone and Mackay and the need for RRC to provide services, employment and housing
to meet the needs of the broader region.
There have been subsequent releases of population projections, specifically the 2011 and 2013
editions. Due to the changes in the LGA boundaries due to amalgamation and de-amalgamation, it is
difficult to compare the 2008 and 2011 population projection editions for the current RRC LGA.
Although, for the former RRC LGA (including Livingstone Shire Council Area) the 2008 High Series
population projection lies between the 2011 Medium and 2011 High Series projections. For this
reason, Council agreed to continue to plan based on the 2008 High Series population projection.
2
Rockhampton Regional Council Population Distribution and Residential Development Study
November 2010 prepared by Buckley Vann, 99 Consulting and Urban Economics
3
Rockhampton Regional Council Economic Development and Employment Study December 2010
prepared by GHD and Economic Associates
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 21
Although the 2013 edition was not released in time to be incorporated in the PAM, the 2008 High
Series population projection is higher than the 2013 High Series population projection for 2011 and
2016, between 2013 Medium Series and 2013 High Series projections for 2021 and between 2013
Low Series and 2013 Medium Series projections for 2026 and 2031.
Residential development sequencing and population growth projections are guided by the subregional allocation of population growth for the former Rockhampton City, Fitzroy and Mount
Morgan Local Government areas. The sub-regional allocation of population growth is informed by
analysis of ABS historical resident population estimates, the extent, distribution and scale of
residential development approvals across the Rockhampton region and emerging development
activity.
2.5.3
Development Probability Analysis
The development probability analysis method is used to quantitatively assess the probability of
future development across the Rockhampton area to assist in the development sequencing of land
to meet projected population and employment growth. Development probability analysis involves
the consideration of a range of rated criteria to determine the comparative probability of future
development. The analysis criteria, description of each criterion and rating criteria are contained in
Table 10.
The adopted rating system included the following range of values which are weighted based on
comparative significance:
•
•
•
•
•
Very Low: 0
Low: 25
Medium: 50
High: 75
Very High: 100
The deliverable from the analysis is the calculation of total ratings and production of a development
probability map detailing future development probability from very low to very high. In terms of
development sequencing, land with the highest development probability is considered for
sequencing first followed sequentially down through the development probability ratings. The
findings from the development probability analysis are shown on Appendix K.
Page 22 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Table 10 - Development Probability Analysis Criteria
Criteria
Description
Development Probability and
Rating Criteria
All Urban and Rural Residential Land Criteria
Strategic
Framework
Settlement
Pattern Map
Designation
Consideration of Strategic Framework
Settlement Pattern Map designations as
an indicator of Council’s preferred high
level sequencing of development.
Strategic Framework Settlement
Pattern Map designation:
• Urban, Urban Infill, Urban
renewal, Rural Residential (≥
5ha): Very High (100)
• New Urban Area: High (75)
• Future Urban Area: Medium
(50)
Vacant Land
Identification of vacant urban and rural
residential land. It was assumed that
vacant land would have higher market
desirability than land with existing
development.
•
Vacant land: High (75)
Development
Approvals
Identification of land with a
development approval for a Material
Change of Use or Reconfiguration of a
Lot (including Preliminary Approvals)
within its currency period. Includes
development approvals up to December
2012.
•
Material Change of Use or
Reconfiguration of a Lot
approval: Very High (100)
Commercial or
Market Viability
and Rate of
Return
Analysis of the increase in development
yield achieved through development as
an indicator for commercial or market
viability and rate of return. This involved
the comparison of existing development
and development capacity calculations
and the calculation of the percentage
(%) increase in development yield (e.g.
10 existing dwellings with development
capacity of 20 dwellings is a 100%
increase or doubling of yield).
Notionally, development of vacant land
would have a higher percentage
increase in yield compared to an infill or
redevelopment site.
Percentage increase in yield:
•
0 - 200%: Very Low (0)
•
200 – 300%: Low (25)
•
300 - 500%: Medium (50)
•
500%+: High (75)
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 23
Criteria
Proximity to
Existing
Infrastructure
Description
Identification of land in proximity to
existing trunk infrastructure or vacant
residential lots serviced with
infrastructure.
Development Probability and
Rating Criteria
• Vacant residential lot with
capacity for one detached
dwelling: Very High (100); or
Buffer distance:
• 0m - 100m: Very High (100)
- Water Supply (33.3)
- Sewerage (33.3) (Urban
land only)
- Road (33.3)
• 100m - 200m: Medium (50)
- Water Supply (16.6)
- Sewerage (16.6) (Urban
land only)
- Road (16.6)
State or Local
Government
Owned Land
Identification of land owned by State or
Local Government. Development of
Government owned land will be
addressed as part of the declaration of
State Interest and Council consultation
processes.
•
200m+: Very Low (0)
•
Government ownership: Very
Low (0)
•
Not Government owned:
Very High (100)
Additional Residential Zoned Land Criteria
Proximity to
Incompatible
and/or
Undesirable
Existing Land Uses
Proximity to
Commercial
Centres
Identification of land in proximity to
incompatible and/or undesirable
existing land uses including:
•
Special Industries;
•
Extractive Industries;
•
Detention Facilities;
•
Intensive Animal Industries;
•
Utility Installations (Waste
Management Facilities);
•
Cemeteries.
Identification of land in proximity to
zoned commercial centres as an
indicator of proximity to services and
employment.
Buffer distance:
•
0m - 50m: Very Low (0)
•
50m - 100m: Low (25)
•
100m+: Medium (50)
Buffer distance:
•
0km - 1km: Medium (50)
•
1km - 5km: Low (25)
•
5km - 10km: Very Low (0)
Page 24 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Criteria
Proximity to
Lifestyle
Attractors
Investment
Properties
2.5.4
Description
Identification of land in proximity to
lifestyle attractors as an indicator of
market desirability including:
•
Schools or Universities;
•
Beaches, waterways and lakes;
•
Parks and sport and recreation
facilities;
Land in ownership by a company or
trust as an indicator of an investment
property and not the principal place of
residence.
Development Probability and
Rating Criteria
Buffer distance:
•
0m - 500m: Medium (50)
•
500m - 5km: Low (25)
•
5km - 10km: Very Low (0)
•
Land in ownership by a
company or trust or rating
address not principal place of
residence: Medium (50)
Residential Development Sequencing
Residential land is sequenced using ABS Census 5 year cohorts for Rockhampton City, Fitzroy and
Mount Morgan areas. At each cohort, land is sequenced based on the selection of land with the
highest development probability until the calculated cumulative total sub-regional population
reaches the adopted sub-regional population projection benchmark. This iterative process is
continued for 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031 cohorts through sequencing land based on highest through
to lowest development probability. The sequencing of land is supported through internal Council
and external development industry consultation. Land in surplus of the 2031 population projection
benchmark is sequenced post 2031.
Residential development sequencing is shown in Appendix L.
2.5.5
Non-Residential Development Sequencing
Non-residential land is sequenced using ABS Census 5 year cohorts. At each cohort, land is
sequenced based on the selection of land with the highest development probability until the
calculated cumulative employment total reaches comparable employment projection benchmarks.
This iterative process is continued for 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031 cohorts through sequencing land
based on highest through to lowest development probability. Land in surplus of the 2031
employment projection benchmark is sequenced post 2031.
Community land is sequenced using ABS Census 5 year cohorts. At each cohort, land is sequenced
based on proposed Local and State Government projects (e.g. new or expansion of schools,
hospitals, police stations etc.). To date, growth associated with State Government projects has not
been included in the RRC PIP planning assumptions.
Non-residential development sequencing is shown in Appendix L.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 25
2.5.6
Sequencing Ground-Truthing
A ground-truthing exercise is then performed on the sequenced parcels to test the sequencing
against local knowledge of what is likely to occur (particularly for greenfield parcels). Where
required, the sequencing is then updated to reflect this local knowledge while still ensuring that
population and employment projections match sub-regional benchmarks.
This process is performed to pick up sequencing that may not be in-line with local knowledge of an
area and is an acknowledgement that the Planning Assumptions Model process cannot possibly
capture all of the factors that affect the sequencing of development. As the development of a
Planning Assumptions Model can take some time, this ground-truthing exercise also picks up
significant land use changes and development approvals that may have occurred since the beginning
of the process.
Page 26 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.6
Step 5 – Priority Infrastructure Area
The fifth step in the PIP Planning Assumptions process is determining the Priority Infrastructure Area
(PIA). The PIA shows Rockhampton Regional Council’s intent to sequence the supply of trunk
infrastructure to accommodate anticipated urban development in the most efficient way. The PIA
includes sufficient urban greenfield and infill land to accommodate population and employment
growth up to 30 June 2031.
The PIA is a two dimensional extent consisting of multiple geographically discreet areas and is to be
read in combination with development sequencing assumptions detailed in Appendix L. The PIA
aligns with development sequencing assumptions and includes land sequenced to complete
development by 30 June 2031 (includes Existing, 2012-2031, 2016, 2016+, 2021, 2021+, 2026 and
2031 timeframes).
Land sequenced to commence development after 30 June 2031 (2031+ timeframe) is outside the PIA
and primarily applies to infill and redevelopment areas inside the PIA or greenfield land outside the
PIA that are not required for 15 to 20 years of growth. The PIA aligns with the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme Strategic Framework Settlement Pattern Maps urban and new urban designations,
and includes some future urban areas in Gracemere.
The PIA is shown in Appendix M.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 27
2.7
Step 6 – Growth Projections
The sixth step in the PIP Planning Assumptions process is the preparation of dwelling, population,
Gross Floor Area (GFA) and employment growth projections. Growth projections are prepared at a
land parcel level in the PAM, exported and summarised by PAM Reporting Areas. Reporting areas
are based on QLD gazetted localities that were amalgamated in areas outside the PIA to form a
balance area. The Gracemere reporting area is split in to two areas (Gracemere North and
Gracemere South) to enable the mapping of the areas at a comparable scale. PAM Reporting Areas
are shown in Appendix E.
Page 28 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2.8
Step 7 – Planning Assumptions Report
The seventh step in the PIP Planning Assumptions process is the preparation of the Planning
Assumptions Report (PAR). The PAR contains the planning assumptions and growth projections
underpinning the Planning Assumptions Model (PAM).
This PAR is structured to:
•
•
•
document the methodology and assumptions used to prepare dwelling, population, gross
floor area (GFA) and employment planning assumptions and the timing of development
(development sequence);
present and discuss dwelling, population, gross floor area, employment projections and
development sequence; and
identify a Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA);
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 29
3.
Central Queensland University Rockhampton Priority
Development Area
The Central Queensland University (CQU) Rockhampton Priority Development Area (PDA) was
declared on 9 December 2011. The PDA covers 189 hectares and is located approximately 5km north
of Rockhampton Central Business District in the suburbs of Norman Gardens and Parkhurst. On 26
April 2013 the CQU Rockhampton PDA Development Scheme was approved by the state
government. The CQU Rockhampton PDA Precinct was created in the PAM to cover the CQU PDA,
and is shown on Map PB-18 in Appendix C.
Due to the significant size and scale of the PDA it was decided to incorporate the CQU Rockhampton
PDA growth into the PAM. As development within the PDA is guided by the CQU Rockhampton PDA
Development Scheme (which is separate to the Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme) the assumed
growth for the area relied on the aspirations of the PDA Development Scheme. As such, the CQU
PDA was considered a special area in the PAM where the growth assumptions came directly from
the PDA Development Scheme and were not calculated using the usual methodology.
3.1
Residential Growth
It is assumed that residential growth will occur on two parcels within the CQU Rockhampton PDA:
Lot 1 on RP613177 (the former CSIRO site) and Lot 70 on Plan LN2378 (the current CQU
Rockhampton site). The dwelling occupancy rates used for the CQU Rockhampton PDA assumptions
are shown in Table 11.
Table 11 - CQU PDA Dwelling Occupancy Rate Assumptions
Dwelling Type
Occupancy Rate
Dwelling House
2.6
Dual Occupancy
1.7
Multiple Dwelling
1.6
Page 30 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
3.1.1
Lot 1/RP613177 (Former CSIRO Site)
Table 12 - Assumed Dwelling Growth on Lot 1/RP613177 (former CSIRO site)
Reporting Category
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Total Dwellings
2016
2021
99
42
141
288
123
411
2026
288
123
411
2031
Ultimate
288
123
411
288
123
411
Table 13 - Assumed Population Growth on Lot 1/RP613177 (former CSIRO site)
Reporting Category
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Total Population
3.1.2
2016
2021
257
72
329
748
210
958
2026
748
210
958
2031
748
210
958
Ultimate
748
210
958
Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton Site)
Table 14 - Assumed Dwelling Growth on Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton site)
Reporting Category
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Total Dwellings
2016
98
48
13
159
2021
342
167
47
555
2026
585
285
81
952
2031
829
404
114
1,348
Ultimate
1,464
714
202
2,379
Table 15 - Assumed Population Growth on Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton site)
Reporting Category
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Total Population
2016
254
81
22
356
2021
888
283
75
1,246
2026
1,522
485
129
2,137
2031
2,157
688
183
3,027
Ultimate
3,806
1,213
323
5,341
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 31
3.2
Non-Residential Growth
It is assumed non-residential growth will occur on one parcel within the CQU Rockhampton PDA: Lot
70 on Plan LN2378 (the current CQU Rockhampton site). The employee to Gross Floor Area (GFA)
ratios used for the CQU Rockhampton PDA assumptions are shown in Table 16.
Table 16 - CQU PDA Employee to GFA Ratio Assumptions
Reporting Category
Employee to GFA Ratio
Retail
35 m2 GFA/Employee
Commercial
25 m2 GFA/Employee
Table 17 - Assumed GFA (m2) Growth on Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton site)
Reporting Category
2016
Retail
Commercial
Total GFA
2021
0
0
0
2026
0
0
0
2,250
1,500
3,750
2031
4,500
3,000
7,500
Ultimate
4,500
3,000
7,500
Table 18 - Assumed Employment Growth on Lot 70/LN2378 (CQU Rockhampton site)
Reporting Category
Retail
Commercial
Total Employment
3.3
2016
2021
0
0
0
2026
0
0
0
64
60
124
2031
129
120
249
Ultimate
129
120
249
Sequencing
Development sequencing for growth within the CQU Rockhampton PDA is largely based on the
aspirations of the CQU Rockhampton PDA Development Scheme. Both growth parcels within the
PDA are timed 2016+ (see Table 9) in the PAM. Due to the significant size and scale of the growth
within the PDA, any changes to the timing of CQU Rockhampton PDA development will influence the
timing of development in other areas, particularly development in Norman Gardens and Parkhurst.
Page 32 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.
Dwelling and Population Planning Assumptions
4.1
Estimated Resident and Non-Resident Population
The PIP planning assumptions include assumptions on the estimated resident population (ERP) and
non-resident population (NRP). The inclusion of the NRP was required to allow the total
infrastructure demand to be considered during infrastructure planning. It is noted that the
benchmark Queensland Government population projections only include projections for the ERP.
NRP data is not available through the Queensland Government and was calculated as part of the
PAM process. The NRP is the estimated number of persons who reside in non-resident
accommodation, including tourist parks, relocatable home parks, short-term accommodation,
hotels, rooming accommodation and hospitals.
In the Rockhampton planning area, the omission of the NRP would result in an approximate 6%
under estimation of population within the PIA in 2012 and an approximate 8% under estimation of
population within the PIA in 2031. This highlights the significance of accounting for the non-resident
population.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 33
4.2
Base Year (2012)
4.2.1
Population
As of 30 June 2012, the estimated resident population of the Rockhampton region was modelled in
the PAM to be 83,992 persons with a non-resident population of 4,958 persons. The total 2012
population (ERP plus NRP) was calculated to be 88,951. The estimated resident population inside the
PIA was modelled in the PAM to be 74,545 persons with 9,447 persons residing outside the PIA.
Figure shows the 2012 ERP inside the PIA for each Reporting Area.
10,000
9,000
8,000
Persons
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Figure 1 – Existing (2012) ERP inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Page 34 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.2.2
Dwellings
As of 30 June 2012, the total number of dwellings was modelled in the PAM to be 36,323 dwellings,
consisting of 27,947 dwelling houses, 1,660 dual occupancies, 3,286 multiple dwellings and 3,430
other dwellings. Figure 2 shows the 2012 dwelling mix across the Rockhampton region.
The total number of dwellings inside the PIA as of 30 June 2012 was 32,793 dwellings, consisting of
24,525 dwelling houses, 1,660 dual occupancies, 3,258 multiple dwellings and 3,350 other dwellings.
Figure 3 shows the 2012 dwelling mix inside the PIA. Of note is the lower percentage of dwelling
houses and the increased percentage of multiple and other dwellings inside the PIA compared to the
entire Rockhampton region.
Other Dwelling
9%
Multiple Dwelling
9%
Dual Occupancy
5%
Dwelling House
77%
Figure 2 - Existing (2012) Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 35
Other Dwelling
10%
Multiple Dwelling
10%
Dual Occupancy
5%
Dwelling House
75%
Figure 3 - Existing (2012) Dwelling Mix within the Priority Infrastructure Area
Page 36 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.3
Growth Projections
The following sections provide a summary of residential development and projected population
growth for each projection cohort. Table 19 and Table 20 contain dwelling and population
projections for the area inside the PIA (grouped by Reporting Area), totals for inside and outside the
PIA and the regional total. Reporting Areas with no population inside the PIA were only included in
the totals for outside the PIA and were not included individually in the tables. PAM Reporting Area
boundaries are shown in Appendix E.
4.3.1
2016 Projection
As of 30 June 2016, the estimated resident population of the Rockhampton region is projected in the
PAM to be 91,782 persons with 82,037 persons inside the PIA and 9,744 persons outside the PIA.
The non-resident population is projected to be 5,902 persons, with the total population projected to
be 97,683 persons.
Figure 4 shows Estimated Resident Population growth inside the PIA between 2012 and 2016 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated by Figure 4, the greatest amount of population growth inside the
PIA is projected in Gracemere North, Gracemere South, Norman Gardens and Parkhurst.
2,000
1,800
1,600
Persons
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 4 - Existing (2012) to 2016 Population Growth (ERP) inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 37
Figure 5 shows the projected 2016 dwelling mix across the Rockhampton region. A comparison of
the 2016 dwelling mix with the 2012 dwelling mix shows that the percentage of dwelling houses
decreases to 75% and multiple dwellings and other dwellings increase to a 10% share each.
Other Dwelling
10%
Multiple Dwelling
10%
Dual Occupancy
5%
Dwelling House
75%
Figure 5 - 2016 Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Page 38 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.3.2
2021 Projection
As of 30 June 2021, the estimated resident population of the Rockhampton region is projected in the
PAM to be 98,149 persons with 88,288 persons inside the PIA and 9,861 persons outside the PIA.
The non-resident population is projected to be 7,140 persons, with the total population projected to
be 105,289 persons.
Figure 6 shows estimated resident population growth inside the PIA between 2016 and 2021 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated by Figure 6, the greatest amount of population growth is projected
in Gracemere South, Kawana, Norman Gardens and Rockhampton City.
2,000
1,800
1,600
Persons
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 6 - 2016 to 2021 Population Growth (ERP) inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 39
Figure 7 shows the projected 2021 dwelling mix across the Rockhampton region. A comparison the
2021 dwelling mix with the 2016 dwelling mix shows that the percentage of dwelling houses
decreases to 73% and multiple dwellings and other dwellings increase to an 11% share each.
Other Dwelling
11%
Multiple Dwelling
11%
Dual Occupancy
5%
Dwelling House
73%
Figure 7 - 2021 Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Page 40 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.3.3
2026 Projection
As of 30 June 2026, the estimated resident population of the Rockhampton region is projected in the
PAM to be 105,458 persons with 95,131 persons inside the PIA and 10,327 persons outside the PIA.
The non-resident population is projected to be 7,900 persons, with the total population projected to
be 113,357 persons.
Figure 8 shows estimated resident population growth inside the PIA between 2021 and 2026 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated by Figure 8, the greatest amount of population growth is projected
in Gracemere North, Gracemere South, Norman Gardens and Parkhurst.
3,000
2,500
Persons
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 8 - 2021 to 2026 Population Growth (ERP) inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 41
Figure 9 shows the projected 2026 dwelling mix across the Rockhampton region. A comparison of
the 2026 dwelling mix with the 2021 dwelling mix shows that the percentage of dwelling houses
decreases to 71%, dual occupancies increase to 6% and multiple dwellings increase to 12%.
Other Dwelling
11%
Multiple Dwelling
12%
Dual Occupancy
6%
Dwelling House
71%
Figure 9 - 2026 Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Page 42 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.3.4
2031 Projection
As of 30 June 2031, the estimated resident population of the Rockhampton region is projected in the
PAM to be 109,969 persons with 99,643 persons inside the PIA and 10,327 persons outside the PIA.
The non-resident population is projected to be 8,660 persons, with the total population projected to
be 118,630 persons.
Figure 10 shows estimated resident population growth inside the PIA between 2026 and 2031 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated by Figure 10, the greatest amount of population growth is
projected in Gracemere North, Gracemere South, Norman Gardens and Parkhurst.
2,000
1,800
1,600
Persons
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 10 - 2026 to 2031 Population Growth (ERP) inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 43
Figure 11 shows the projected 2031 dwelling mix across the Rockhampton region. A comparison of
the 2031 dwelling mix with the 2026 dwelling mix shows that the percentage of dwelling houses
decreases to 70% and other dwellings increase to 12%.
Other Dwelling
12%
Multiple Dwelling
12%
Dual Occupancy
6%
Dwelling House
70%
Figure 11 - 2031 Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Page 44 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
4.4
Ultimate Development
Ultimate development refers to the development yield possible if development is consistent with
the Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme for land parcels having regard to allowable uses,
development densities, lot size, internal road, park and drainage allowances, development
constraints and development approvals. Ultimate development yield for the region is limited by
zoned land within the Rockhampton Region Planning Scheme and should not be considered a cap or
constraint on growth within region.
Based on ultimate population capacity analysis, the ultimate resident population is modelled in the
PAM to be 129,061 persons with 105,528 persons inside the PIA and 23,533 persons outside the PIA.
The non-resident population is projected to be 20,833 persons, with the total population projected
to be 149,893 persons. This ultimate population identifies the total resident and non-resident
population that can be accommodated within the identified settlement pattern of the planning
scheme.
Figure 12 shows the ultimate resident population capacity for Reporting Areas with an ERP greater
than 500 persons. As demonstrated in Figure 12, the top ten Reporting Areas from highest to lowest
population capacity are Parkhurst, Norman Gardens, Gracemere South, Frenchville, Berserker,
Gracemere North, Park Avenue, The Range, Kawana and Koongal.
20,000
18,000
16,000
Persons
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Figure 12 - Ultimate Population Capacity (ERP) by Reporting Area (where ERP > 500)
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 45
Figure 13 shows the dwelling mix at ultimate development across the Rockhampton region. As
demonstrated in Figure 13, the ultimate dwelling mix permissible under the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme sees a decrease in the percentage of dwelling houses and an increase in the
percentage of other dwellings. The significant increase in the percentage of other dwellings is
attributable to the multistorey buildings allowable in the Principal Centre and High Density
Residential zones within Rockhampton’s Central Business District. Many of these parcels have
existing uses on them and would require redevelopment to achieve this ultimate density.
Other Dwelling
20%
Multiple Dwelling
11%
Dual Occupancy
6%
Dwelling House
63%
Figure 13 - Ultimate Dwelling Mix within the Rockhampton Regional Council Area
Page 46 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Table 19 - Existing and Projected Dwellings
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Allenstown
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Berserker
Depot Hill
Frenchville
Gracemere North
Dwellings Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
1,048
84
397
883
2,412
2,666
147
421
245
3,479
520
2
5
9
536
3,249
249
191
0
3,689
1,207
36
62
0
1,305
2016
1,049
84
408
887
2,428
2,677
156
637
245
3,714
520
2
5
9
536
3,281
253
195
0
3,730
1,538
46
71
22
1,677
2021
1,054
84
408
887
2,433
2,720
156
719
245
3,840
525
2
5
9
541
3,385
253
195
0
3,833
1,687
66
92
140
1,985
2026
1,051
88
430
887
2,456
2,693
160
1,063
245
4,161
525
2
5
9
541
3,385
253
195
0
3,833
1,974
131
170
210
2,485
2031
1,050
92
430
887
2,459
2,664
222
1,063
245
4,194
525
2
5
9
541
3,385
253
195
0
3,833
2,132
151
261
397
2,942
Ultimate
970
154
429
1,410
2,963
2,606
340
1,063
228
4,238
525
2
5
9
541
3,446
257
199
0
3,902
2,123
156
340
549
3,169
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 47
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Gracemere South
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Kabra
Kawana
Koongal
Lakes Creek
Dwellings Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
1,543
22
14
0
1,579
1
0
0
0
1
1,423
191
215
13
1,842
1,592
113
207
21
1,933
77
0
0
0
77
Page 48 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
2,169
88
29
0
2,286
1
0
0
0
1
1,522
233
215
13
1,983
1,593
113
207
21
1,934
77
0
0
0
77
2021
2,492
129
70
0
2,690
1
0
0
0
1
1,737
314
215
13
2,279
1,597
113
207
21
1,938
81
0
0
0
81
2026
2,924
165
112
0
3,200
1
0
0
0
1
1,737
314
215
13
2,279
1,597
113
207
21
1,938
81
0
0
0
81
2031
3,242
205
152
0
3,599
0
0
0
0
0
1,737
314
215
13
2,279
1,597
113
207
21
1,938
81
0
0
0
81
Ultimate
3,459
235
182
0
3,876
0
0
0
0
0
1,739
314
215
13
2,280
1,651
115
209
21
1,995
82
0
0
0
82
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Mount Morgan
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Norman Gardens
Park Avenue
Parkhurst
Port Curtis
Dwellings Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
1,013
8
30
18
1,069
2,854
364
290
239
3,747
1,970
194
223
93
2,480
409
6
0
259
674
0
0
0
0
0
2016
1,013
8
30
18
1,069
3,431
501
379
239
4,550
1,971
194
227
93
2,485
890
68
48
259
1,266
0
0
0
0
0
2021
1,013
8
30
18
1,069
4,005
643
436
239
5,324
1,981
194
227
93
2,495
1,055
68
48
259
1,431
0
0
0
0
0
2026
1,013
8
30
18
1,069
4,266
768
476
239
5,748
1,981
194
227
93
2,495
1,775
256
236
259
2,526
0
0
0
0
0
2031
1,068
8
30
18
1,124
4,510
887
509
239
6,145
1,981
194
227
93
2,495
2,370
332
312
259
3,272
0
0
0
0
0
Ultimate
1,260
8
30
202
1,500
5,192
1,202
574
107
7,074
1,989
194
227
21
2,431
2,917
418
398
259
3,992
0
0
0
0
0
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 49
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Rockhampton City
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
The Common
The Mine
The Range
Walterhall
Dwellings Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
773
45
349
1,435
2,601
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
1,772
90
489
135
2,486
34
0
0
0
34
Page 50 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
775
45
675
1,967
3,461
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
1,772
90
489
135
2,486
34
0
0
0
34
2021
798
45
1,330
2,623
4,795
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
1,786
90
489
135
2,500
34
0
0
0
34
2026
785
57
1,663
3,028
5,533
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
1,785
90
498
135
2,508
34
0
0
0
34
2031
781
65
1,663
3,317
5,825
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
1,785
90
498
135
2,508
42
0
0
0
42
Ultimate
724
75
1,655
10,219
12,673
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
12
1,806
100
498
135
2,539
48
0
0
0
48
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Wandal
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total Dwellings
West Rockhampton
Total Inside PIA
Total Outside PIA
Total Regional Area
Dwellings Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
1,578
43
297
0
1,918
787
66
70
0
923
24,525
1,660
3,258
3,350
32,793
3,423
0
27
80
3,530
27,947
1,660
3,286
3,430
36,323
2016
1,578
43
297
32
1,950
769
66
70
0
905
26,668
1,991
3,983
3,939
36,581
3,527
0
27
80
3,634
30,195
1,991
4,010
4,019
40,215
2021
1,586
43
297
32
1,958
782
66
70
0
918
28,327
2,274
4,839
4,713
40,154
3,571
0
27
80
3,678
31,897
2,274
4,867
4,793
43,832
2026
1,586
43
297
32
1,958
778
66
70
0
914
29,977
2,708
5,895
5,188
43,768
3,738
0
27
80
3,845
33,715
2,708
5,922
5,268
47,613
2031
1,586
43
297
32
1,958
778
66
70
0
914
31,323
3,037
6,135
5,663
46,159
3,738
0
27
80
3,845
35,061
3,037
6,163
5,743
50,004
Ultimate
1,591
43
297
32
1,963
816
67
71
0
955
32,956
3,680
6,392
13,205
56,233
8,102
493
520
80
9,195
41,058
4,173
6,912
13,285
65,428
Note: Sum of data may not equal totals due to rounding
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 51
Table 20 - Existing and Projected Population
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Allenstown
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Berserker
Depot Hill
Frenchville
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
2,830
143
634
210
3,817
1,203
7,199
250
673
63
8,186
329
1,404
3
8
0
1,415
14
8,772
423
306
0
9,501
0
Page 52 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
2,833
143
653
210
3,839
1,209
7,226
265
1,019
63
8,573
329
1,404
3
8
0
1,415
14
8,856
431
312
0
9,599
0
2021
2,846
143
653
210
3,851
1,209
7,338
265
1,151
63
8,816
329
1,417
3
8
0
1,428
14
9,124
431
312
0
9,867
0
2026
2,836
150
689
210
3,884
1,209
7,264
271
1,702
63
9,300
329
1,417
3
8
0
1,428
14
9,124
431
312
0
9,867
0
2031
2,833
156
689
210
3,888
1,209
7,186
377
1,702
63
9,327
329
1,417
3
8
0
1,428
14
9,124
431
312
0
9,867
0
Ultimate
2,617
262
687
210
3,775
2,047
7,022
577
1,702
63
9,364
302
1,417
3
8
0
1,428
14
9,280
437
318
0
10,035
0
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Gracemere North
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Gracemere South
Kabra
Kawana
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
3,500
61
99
0
3,661
0
4,475
37
22
0
4,535
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
3,842
325
344
0
4,511
20
2016
4,427
78
114
0
4,619
35
6,228
150
46
0
6,424
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
4,099
397
344
0
4,840
20
2021
4,844
112
147
0
5,102
224
7,129
219
112
0
7,460
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
4,658
534
344
0
5,536
20
2026
5,640
223
272
0
6,135
336
8,335
280
179
0
8,794
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
4,658
534
344
0
5,536
20
2031
6,080
257
418
0
6,756
635
9,225
349
243
0
9,817
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,658
534
344
0
5,536
20
Ultimate
6,054
266
543
0
6,863
879
9,831
399
291
0
10,522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,658
534
344
0
5,537
20
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 53
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Koongal
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Lakes Creek
Mount Morgan
Norman Gardens
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
4,298
192
331
0
4,822
34
208
0
0
0
208
0
2,026
14
48
0
2,087
29
7,706
619
463
106
8,894
277
Page 54 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
4,301
192
331
0
4,824
34
208
0
0
0
208
0
2,036
14
48
0
2,097
29
9,206
852
607
106
10,770
277
2021
4,311
192
331
0
4,835
34
218
0
0
0
218
0
2,036
14
48
0
2,097
29
10,698
1,094
698
106
12,595
277
2026
4,311
192
331
0
4,835
34
218
0
0
0
218
0
2,036
14
48
0
2,097
29
11,376
1,305
761
106
13,548
277
2031
4,311
192
331
0
4,835
34
218
0
0
0
218
0
2,162
14
48
0
2,224
29
12,010
1,508
815
106
14,438
277
Ultimate
4,450
195
334
0
4,979
34
221
0
0
0
221
0
2,899
14
48
0
2,961
322
13,782
2,043
918
0
16,743
171
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Park Avenue
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Parkhurst
Port Curtis
Rockhampton City
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
5,319
330
357
0
6,005
149
1,104
10
0
102
1,217
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,086
77
558
0
2,720
2,296
2016
5,321
330
363
0
6,014
149
2,354
116
78
102
2,650
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,091
77
1,080
0
3,247
3,147
2021
5,347
330
363
0
6,040
149
2,784
116
78
102
3,080
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,149
77
2,128
0
4,353
4,197
2026
5,347
330
363
0
6,040
149
4,654
435
378
102
5,570
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,113
97
2,661
0
4,871
4,845
2031
5,347
330
363
0
6,040
149
6,201
564
498
102
7,366
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,102
111
2,661
0
4,874
5,306
Ultimate
5,367
330
363
0
6,060
34
7,622
711
637
102
9,072
312
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,946
128
2,648
0
4,722
16,351
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 55
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
The Common
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
The Mine
The Range
Walterhall
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
16
0
4,786
153
782
0
5,721
216
68
0
0
0
68
0
Page 56 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
16
0
4,786
153
782
0
5,721
216
68
0
0
0
68
0
2021
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
16
0
4,820
153
782
0
5,755
216
68
0
0
0
68
0
2026
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
16
0
4,817
153
797
0
5,767
216
68
0
0
0
68
0
2031
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
21
0
4,817
153
797
0
5,767
216
86
0
0
0
86
0
Ultimate
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
28
0
4,872
170
797
0
5,839
216
110
0
0
0
110
0
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Wandal
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Total Population
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Total Population
West Rockhampton
Total Inside PIA
Total Outside PIA
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
4,262
73
475
0
4,810
0
2,125
112
112
0
2,349
0
66,029
2,822
5,214
481
74,545
4,878
79,424
9,355
0
44
48
9,447
80
9,527
2016
4,262
73
475
0
4,810
51
2,076
112
112
0
2,300
0
71,799
3,384
6,373
481
82,037
5,822
87,859
9,653
0
44
48
9,744
80
9,824
2021
4,283
73
475
0
4,831
51
2,110
112
112
0
2,334
0
76,197
3,867
7,743
481
88,288
7,060
95,348
9,769
0
44
48
9,861
80
9,941
2026
2031
4,283
73
475
0
4,831
51
2,099
112
112
0
2,323
0
80,615
4,603
9,432
481
95,131
7,820
102,951
10,235
0
44
48
10,327
80
10,407
4,283
73
475
0
4,831
51
2,099
112
112
0
2,323
0
84,182
5,163
9,817
481
99,643
8,580
108,223
10,235
0
44
48
10,327
80
10,407
Ultimate
4,293
73
475
0
4,841
51
2,199
114
114
0
2,428
0
88,669
6,257
10,227
375
105,528
20,753
126,281
21,815
838
832
48
23,533
80
23,613
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 57
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Total Regional Area
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
Multiple Dwelling
Other Dwelling
Total ERP
Total NRP
Total Population
Population Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
75,384
2,822
5,257
529
83,992
4,958
88,951
Note: Sum of data may not equal totals due to rounding
Page 58 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
81,452
3,384
6,417
529
91,782
5,902
97,683
2021
2026
2031
85,966
3,867
7,787
529
98,149
7,140
105,289
90,850
4,603
9,475
529
105,458
7,900
113,357
94,417
5,163
9,860
529
109,969
8,660
118,630
Ultimate
110,484
7,094
11,060
423
129,061
20,833
149,893
5.
Gross Floor Area and Employment Planning Assumptions
5.1
Base Year (2012)
5.1.1
Employment
As of 30 June 2012, the number of persons in urban based employment in the Rockhampton region
was modelled in the PAM to be 34,036 persons. Urban based employment inside the PIA was
modelled in the PAM to be 33,106 persons with 929 persons employed outside the PIA. As shown in
Figure 14, the Reporting Areas with the largest urban based employment inside the PIA are
Berserker, Kawana, Park Avenue and Rockhampton City.
14,000
12,000
Employees
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Figure 14 - Existing (2012) Urban Based Employment inside the PIA by Reporting Area
5.1.2
Gross Floor Area
As of 30 June 2012, the amount of urban Gross Floor Area (GFA) in the Rockhampton region was
modelled in the PAM to be 2,146,931m2 GFA (214.7ha). Urban GFA inside the PIA was calculated to
be 2,027,184m2 GFA (202.7ha) with 119,747m2 GFA (12ha) located outside the PIA.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 59
5.2
Growth Projections
The following sections provide a summary of non-residential development and projected
employment growth for each projection cohort. Table 21 and Table 22 contain Gross Floor Area
(GFA) and employment projections within the PIA for each Reporting Area, totals for inside and
outside the PIA and the area total. Reporting Areas with no employment inside the PIA were not
included in the tables. PAM Reporting Area boundaries are shown in Appendix E.
5.2.1
2016 Projection
As of 30 June 2016, urban based employment in the Rockhampton area is projected in the PAM to
be 40,728 persons with 39,798 employed persons inside the PIA and 929 employed persons outside
the PIA. Figure 15 shows projected employment growth inside the PIA between 2012 and 2016 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated in Figure 15, the greatest amount of employment growth is
projected in Berserker, Gracemere South, Parkhurst and Rockhampton City. This reflects current
centre locations, existing industrial areas and employment growth in the Gracemere Industrial Area
(GIA).
1,800
1,600
1,400
Employees
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 15 - Existing (2012) to 2016 Employment Growth inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Page 60 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
5.2.2
2021 Projection
As of 30 June 2021, urban based employment in the Rockhampton region is projected in the PAM to
be 47,694 persons with 46,722 employed persons inside the PIA and 971 employed persons outside
the PIA. Figure 16 shows projected employment growth inside the PIA between 2016 and 2021 by
Reporting Area. As demonstrated in Figure 16, the greatest amount of employment growth is
projected in Berserker, Gracemere North, Gracemere South and Rockhampton City. This figure
identifies employment growth within the GIA and shows the role of the Principal Centre as a
commercial employment centre.
3,000
2,500
Employees
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 16 - 2016 to 2021 Employment Growth inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 61
5.2.3
2026 Projection
As of 30 June 2026, urban based employment in the Rockhampton region is projected in the PAM to
be 55,427 persons with 54,385 employed persons inside the PIA and 1,042 employed persons
outside the PIA. Figure 17 shows projected employment growth inside the PIA between 2021 and
2026 by Reporting Area. As demonstrated in Figure 17, the greatest amount of employment growth
is projected in Berserker, Gracemere North, Gracemere South and Rockhampton City. Again, the GIA
supports strong employment growth in Gracemere South.
3,500
3,000
Employees
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 17 - 2021 to 2026 Employment Growth inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Page 62 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
5.2.4
2031 Projection
As of 30 June 2031, urban based employment in the Rockhampton region is projected in the PAM to
be 60,783 persons with 59,741 employed persons inside the PIA and 1,042 employed persons
outside the PIA. Figure 18 shows projected employment growth inside the PIA between 2026 and
2031 by Reporting Area. As demonstrated in Figure 18, the greatest amount of employment growth
is projected in Gracemere North, Kabra, Kawana and Rockhampton City.
3,000
2,500
Employees
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 18 - 2026 to 2031 Employment Growth inside the PIA by Reporting Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 63
5.3
Ultimate Development
Ultimate development refers to the development yield permissible under the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme for land parcels having regard to allowable uses, development densities, lot size,
internal road, park and drainage allowances, development constraints and development approvals.
Ultimate development yield for the region is limited by zoned land within the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme and should not be considered a cap or constraint on growth within region.
Based on ultimate Gross Floor Area (GFA) and employment capacity analysis, the ultimate urban
based employment is modelled in the PAM to be 226,058 persons with 168,469 employed persons
inside the PIA and 57,589 employed persons outside the PIA. This ultimate employment identifies
the total employment that can be generated within the identified settlement pattern of the planning
scheme.
Figure 19 shows the ultimate employment capacity for Reporting Areas with number of employees
greater than 200 persons. As demonstrated in Figure 19, the top ten Reporting Areas from highest to
lowest include Rockhampton City, Berserker, Stanwell, Parkhurst, Kabra, Park Avenue, Norman
Gardens, Gracemere North, Kawana and Gracemere South.
60,000
50,000
Employees
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Figure 19 - Ultimate Employment Capacity by Reporting Area (where Employees > 200)
Page 64 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Table 21 - Existing and Projected Non-Residential Gross Floor Area (m2)
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Allenstown
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Berserker
Depot Hill
Frenchville
Gracemere North
Gross Floor Area (m2) Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
39,435
30,058
15,964
30,677
116,133
97,246
28,270
16,496
31,349
173,362
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
8,479
2,621
717
36,436
48,252
33,724
2,350
13,759
17,190
67,023
2016
2021
2026
2031
40,346
30,412
15,964
30,677
117,399
121,390
41,593
14,765
31,349
209,097
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
11,551
4,261
717
36,436
52,964
40,006
4,558
21,413
17,190
83,167
60,760
30,412
29,941
30,677
151,790
134,681
48,029
16,875
31,349
230,933
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
11,551
4,261
717
36,436
52,964
75,376
16,348
33,911
17,190
142,825
60,760
30,412
29,941
30,677
151,790
155,678
67,575
16,875
31,349
271,476
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
11,551
4,261
717
36,436
52,964
96,357
23,342
62,383
17,190
199,272
60,760
30,412
29,941
30,677
151,790
155,678
67,575
16,875
31,349
271,476
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
11,551
4,261
717
36,436
52,964
148,483
42,025
62,155
17,190
269,854
Ultimate
237,994
43,608
81,999
30,677
394,277
811,296
181,579
95,267
31,349
1,119,490
2,412
128
22,848
5,912
31,301
12,657
4,538
717
36,436
54,348
190,206
56,992
66,861
17,190
331,249
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 65
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Gracemere South
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Kabra
Kawana
Koongal
Lakes Creek
Gross Floor Area (m2) Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
1,595
0
16,916
5,301
23,812
0
0
0
0
0
18,051
4,256
150,346
36,454
209,107
5,263
0
2,591
10,173
18,027
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
Page 66 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
2021
2026
2031
1,595
0
104,882
5,301
111,778
0
0
0
0
0
18,309
4,870
186,609
36,454
246,242
5,263
0
2,591
10,173
18,027
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
1,595
0
246,035
5,301
252,931
0
0
0
0
0
15,140
4,391
214,009
36,454
269,994
5,263
0
2,591
10,173
18,027
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
1,595
0
603,093
5,301
609,989
0
0
0
0
0
15,140
4,391
258,346
36,454
314,331
5,263
0
2,591
10,173
18,027
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
1,595
0
603,093
5,301
609,989
0
0
126,082
0
126,082
15,140
4,391
316,723
36,454
372,708
5,263
0
2,591
10,173
18,027
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
Ultimate
1,086
0
767,153
5,301
773,540
0
0
126,082
0
126,082
62,973
2,992
731,065
36,454
833,484
5,263
0
5,861
10,173
21,297
0
0
23,840
2,723
26,564
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Mount Morgan
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Norman Gardens
Park Avenue
Parkhurst
Port Curtis
Gross Floor Area (m2) Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
14,439
2,191
174
25,531
42,335
54,492
2,981
6,172
84,243
147,888
85,167
21,773
94,582
38,394
239,916
11,334
3,772
138,783
7,201
161,090
0
0
0
0
0
2016
2021
2026
2031
14,439
2,191
174
25,531
42,335
60,068
5,295
6,172
84,243
155,778
87,181
22,644
94,582
38,394
242,801
22,352
6,866
184,425
7,201
220,843
0
0
0
0
0
14,439
2,191
174
25,531
42,335
60,068
5,295
6,172
84,243
155,778
87,181
22,644
94,582
38,394
242,801
22,352
6,866
191,375
7,201
227,794
0
0
0
0
0
14,439
2,191
174
25,531
42,335
62,318
6,795
6,172
84,243
159,528
87,181
22,644
94,582
38,394
242,801
24,153
7,606
191,375
7,201
230,335
0
0
0
0
0
14,439
2,191
174
25,531
42,335
64,568
8,295
6,172
84,243
163,278
87,181
22,644
94,582
38,394
242,801
24,151
7,606
191,375
6,344
229,476
0
0
0
0
0
Ultimate
59,425
19,740
174
25,531
104,869
618,240
8,295
348
84,243
711,125
528,071
6,462
283,247
38,394
856,174
22,984
7,448
1,267,052
6,344
1,303,829
0
0
0
0
0
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 67
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Rockhampton City
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
The Common
The Mine
The Range
Walterhall
Gross Floor Area (m2) Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
189,116
195,672
110,480
38,455
533,723
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
Page 68 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
2021
2026
2031
223,240
205,219
109,712
38,455
576,627
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
277,129
213,372
108,709
38,455
637,666
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
295,715
211,093
108,709
38,455
653,973
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
324,569
219,567
108,709
38,455
691,301
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
Ultimate
1,007,667
530,947
108,709
38,455
1,685,779
674
0
0
7,032
7,706
0
0
0
0
0
4,139
1,051
0
101,614
106,803
0
0
0
0
0
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Wandal
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total GFA
West Rockhampton
Total Inside PIA
Total Outside PIA
Total Regional Area
Gross Floor Area (m2) Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
6,988
1,937
4,106
49,752
62,784
1,512
2,350
4,195
3,302
11,360
574,066
299,410
621,969
531,740
2,027,184
10,809
230
82,213
26,496
119,747
584,874
299,640
704,182
558,236
2,146,931
2016
7,576
2,278
3,969
49,752
63,575
2,524
4,374
4,195
5,327
16,421
663,065
335,741
796,858
533,764
2,329,428
10,809
230
82,213
26,496
119,747
673,873
335,971
879,070
560,260
2,449,175
2021
7,576
2,278
3,969
49,752
63,575
2,524
4,374
7,594
5,327
19,819
782,859
361,640
1,003,342
533,764
2,681,605
10,809
230
87,172
26,496
124,707
793,668
361,870
1,090,514
560,260
2,806,312
2026
7,576
2,278
3,969
49,752
63,575
2,929
5,184
7,594
6,136
21,843
847,880
388,951
1,433,210
534,574
3,204,615
10,809
230
95,650
26,496
133,184
858,689
389,181
1,528,860
561,070
3,337,799
2031
7,576
2,278
3,969
49,752
63,575
2,929
5,184
7,594
6,136
21,843
931,107
417,609
1,617,441
533,717
3,499,874
10,809
230
95,650
26,496
133,184
941,916
417,839
1,713,091
560,213
3,633,058
Ultimate
8,860
2,599
3,969
49,752
65,180
2,929
5,184
7,594
6,136
21,843
3,576,876
871,563
3,592,786
533,717
8,574,941
10,809
230
6,530,553
26,496
6,568,088
3,587,685
871,793
10,123,339
560,213
15,143,029
Note: Sum of data may not equal totals due to rounding
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 69
Table 22 - Existing and Projected Employment
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Allenstown
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Berserker
Depot Hill
Frenchville
Gracemere North
Employees Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
878
358
160
247
1,643
2,332
1,131
161
225
3,849
26
5
175
29
235
191
105
7
301
604
836
94
129
109
1,168
Page 70 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
909
372
160
247
1,688
3,327
1,664
144
225
5,359
26
5
175
29
235
405
170
7
301
884
1,047
182
206
109
1,544
2021
1,253
372
299
247
2,172
3,797
1,921
165
225
6,109
26
5
175
29
235
405
170
7
301
884
2,226
654
332
109
3,321
2026
1,253
372
299
247
2,172
4,779
2,703
165
225
7,872
26
5
175
29
235
405
170
7
301
884
2,925
934
617
109
4,585
2031
1,253
372
299
247
2,172
4,779
2,703
165
225
7,872
26
5
175
29
235
405
170
7
301
884
4,690
1,681
615
109
7,095
Ultimate
5,405
1,379
820
247
7,852
24,481
7,263
952
225
32,921
26
5
175
29
235
449
182
7
301
939
6,141
2,280
662
109
9,192
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Gracemere South
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Kabra
Kawana
Koongal
Lakes Creek
Employees Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
27
0
162
51
241
0
0
0
0
0
382
170
1,451
223
2,226
105
0
24
95
224
0
0
159
23
182
2016
27
0
846
51
925
0
0
0
0
0
417
195
1,814
223
2,648
105
0
24
95
224
0
0
159
23
182
2021
27
0
1,997
51
2,075
0
0
0
0
0
344
176
2,088
223
2,830
105
0
24
95
224
0
0
159
23
182
2026
27
0
5,252
51
5,330
0
0
0
0
0
344
176
2,531
223
3,274
105
0
24
95
224
0
0
159
23
182
2031
27
0
5,252
51
5,330
0
0
841
0
841
344
176
3,115
223
3,857
105
0
24
95
224
0
0
159
23
182
Ultimate
13
0
6,853
51
6,917
0
0
841
0
841
1,187
120
7,311
223
8,840
105
0
57
95
257
0
0
159
23
182
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 71
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Mount Morgan
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Norman Gardens
Park Avenue
Parkhurst
Port Curtis
Employees Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
267
85
2
218
572
1,231
23
62
631
1,947
2,297
681
871
215
4,064
118
21
1,257
81
1,476
0
0
0
0
0
Page 72 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
267
85
2
218
572
1,473
116
62
631
2,281
2,394
716
871
215
4,196
643
145
1,711
81
2,580
0
0
0
0
0
2021
267
85
2
218
572
1,473
116
62
631
2,281
2,394
716
871
215
4,196
643
145
1,780
81
2,650
0
0
0
0
0
2026
267
85
2
218
572
1,537
176
62
631
2,406
2,394
716
871
215
4,196
754
175
1,780
81
2,790
0
0
0
0
0
2031
267
85
2
218
572
1,602
236
62
631
2,530
2,394
716
871
215
4,196
754
175
1,780
77
2,786
0
0
0
0
0
Ultimate
1,893
787
2
218
2,900
10,638
236
3
631
11,508
12,673
144
2,791
215
15,822
726
168
11,392
77
12,364
0
0
0
0
0
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Rockhampton City
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
The Common
The Mine
The Range
Walterhall
Employees Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
4,479
6,770
1,096
367
12,713
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
2016
5,729
7,152
1,089
367
14,337
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
2021
7,891
7,478
1,079
367
16,816
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
2026
8,601
7,387
1,079
367
17,434
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
2031
9,563
7,726
1,079
367
18,735
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
Ultimate
33,767
20,193
1,079
367
55,406
7
0
0
28
35
0
0
0
0
0
81
42
0
1,130
1,253
0
0
0
0
0
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 73
Reporting Area
Reporting Category
Wandal
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Community Purposes
Total Employment
West Rockhampton
Total Inside PIA
Total Outside PIA
Total Regional Area
Employees Per Time Period
Existing (2012)
135
77
36
223
471
40
94
42
28
204
13,431
9,657
5,794
4,224
33,106
124
9
634
162
929
13,555
9,666
6,428
4,386
34,036
Note: Sum of data may not equal totals due to rounding
Page 74 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2016
171
91
34
223
520
50
175
42
68
335
17,078
11,110
7,345
4,265
39,798
124
9
634
162
929
17,202
11,120
7,979
4,427
40,728
2021
171
91
34
223
520
50
175
76
68
369
21,162
12,146
9,150
4,265
46,722
124
9
676
162
971
21,286
12,155
9,826
4,427
47,694
2026
171
91
34
223
520
54
207
76
84
422
23,731
13,239
13,134
4,281
54,385
124
9
747
162
1,042
23,855
13,248
13,880
4,443
55,427
2031
171
91
34
223
520
54
207
76
84
422
26,522
14,385
14,556
4,277
59,741
124
9
747
162
1,042
26,646
14,394
15,303
4,440
60,783
Ultimate
222
104
34
223
584
54
207
76
84
422
97,869
33,109
33,214
4,277
168,469
124
9
57,294
162
57,589
97,993
33,118
90,508
4,440
226,058
6.
Priority Infrastructure Area
The Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) was determined in the fifth step of the PIP Planning
Assumptions process. The PIA identifies sufficient land to accommodate forecast growth to 30 June
2031. It facilitates the delivery of services and infrastructure in the most efficient way. The PIP, in
collaboration with the strategic settlement pattern zone allocations and provisions, will schedule
infrastructure works to service development within the PIA.
The PIA is a two dimensional extent consisting of multiple geographically discreet areas and is to
read in combination with development sequencing assumptions detailed in Appendix L. The PIA
aligns with development sequencing assumptions and includes land sequenced to complete
development by 30 June 2031 (includes Existing, 2012-2031, 2016, 2016+, 2021, 2021+, 2026 and
2031 timeframes in Appendix L).
Land sequenced to commence development after 30 June 2031 (2031+ timeframe) is outside the PIA
and primarily applies to infill and redevelopment areas inside the PIA or greenfield land outside the
PIA that are not required for 15 to 20 years of growth. The PIA aligns with the Rockhampton Region
Planning Scheme Strategic Framework Settlement Pattern Maps urban and new urban designations
and urban zones excluding rural residential land parcels not intended to be serviced with trunk
infrastructure.
The PIA is shown in Appendix M.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 75
7.
Summary
7.1
Population
As of 30 June 2012, the estimated resident population (ERP) of the Rockhampton region is modelled
in the PAM to be 83,992 persons with a non-resident population (NRP) of 4,958 persons and a total
population (ERP plus NRP) of 88,951 persons (refer to Section 4.2.1). By 2031, it is projected that the
total population will be 118,630 persons. As shown in Figure 20, the resident population of the
Rockhampton Regional Council (RRC) area is projected in the PAM to grow slightly above the 2008
High Series population projection and somewhat in line with 2013 High Series population projection.
At a sub-regional level, the Mount Morgan area is projected to grow in line with 2008 Medium Series
population projections and Rockhampton City and Fitzroy areas are projected to grow above 2008
Medium Series population projections, as shown in Figure 21.
Figure 22 shows the projected resident population for the RRC area by dwelling type.
A summary of population projections at a sub-regional scale is shown in Table 23. A summary of
population inside and outside the PIA is shown in Table 24. The 2008, 2011 and 2013 Queensland
Government population projections are shown in Table 25.
It should be noted that the PAM (including comparisons to Queensland Government population
projections) was completed before de-amalgamation using the former RRC LGA (including
Livingstone Shire Council Area). The PAM and Queensland Government population projections have
since been split to include only the current RRC area.
120,000
Persons
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008 Medium Series ERP Projection
2013 Medium Series ERP Projection
2008 High Series ERP Projection
2013 High Series ERP Projection
PAM ERP Projection
Figure 20 - Planning Assumptions Model and Queensland Government ERP Projections
Page 76 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
2031
Persons
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2011
2016
2021
2026
2031
Rockhampton City Area PAM ERP Projection
Rockhampton City Area 2008 Medium Series ERP Projection
Fitzroy Area PAM ERP Projection
Fitzroy Area 2008 Medium Series ERP Projection
Mount Morgan Area PAM ERP Projection
Mount Morgan Area 2008 Medium Series ERP Projection
Figure 21 - Planning Assumptions Model and 2008 Queensland Government Sub-Regional ERP
Projections
100,000
90,000
80,000
Persons
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2011
2016
Dwelling House
Dual Occupancy
2021
Multiple Dwelling
2026
2031
Other Dwelling
Figure 22 - ERP Projections by Dwelling Type
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 77
Table 23 - Planning Assumptions Model and Queensland Government ERP Projection Comparison
2012
(Existing)
Rockhampton City
Area
Fitzroy Area
2031
70,654
75,473
79,950
82,670
2008 Medium Series Projection
67,430
69,436
71,771
73,885
75,930
Planning Assumptions Model
-1,424
(-2.1%)
14,828
1,218
(1.8%)
17,952
3,702
(5.2%)
19,500
6,065
(8.2%)
22,332
6,740
(8.9%)
23,974
2008 Medium Series Projection
13,707
15,036
16,401
17,871
19,361
1,121
(8.2%)
3,159
2,916
(19.4%)
3,176
3,099
(18.9%)
3,176
4,461
(25%)
3,176
4,613
(23.8%)
3,325
3,407
3,468
3,543
3,617
3,679
Planning Assumptions Model
-248
(-7.3%)
83,992
-292
(-8.4%)
91,782
-367
(-10.4%)
98,149
-441
(-12.2%)
105,458
-354
(-9.6%)
109,969
2008 High Series Projection
85,805
90,122
94,936
99,683
104,393
Planning Assumptions Model
-1,813
(-2.1%)
118,729
1,660
(1.8%)
133,038
3,213
(3.4%)
142,664
5,775
(5.8%)
156,366
5,576
(5.3%)
166,422
2008 High Series Projection
123,409
131,714
142,343
153,483
164,745
-4,680
(-3.8%)
1,324
(1%)
321
(0.2%)
2,883
(1.9%)
1,677
(1%)
Difference
2008 Medium Series Projection
Difference
Difference
Former RRC LGA
(Including Livingstone
Shire Council Area)
2026
66,006
Planning Assumptions Model
RRC LGA
2021
Planning Assumptions Model
Difference
Mount Morgan Area
2016
Difference
^Average annual population growth rate between 2012 and 2031
Page 78 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
Growth
Rate % ^
RRC Growth
Share %
(2012-2031)
1.2%
64.1%
2.6%
35.2%
0.3%
0.6%
1.4%
100.0%
1.8%
Table 24 - Population Summary
2012
(Existing)
Total ERP in PIA
2016
2021
2026
2031
74,545
82,037
88,288
95,131
99,643
Total ERP Outside PIA
9,447
9,744
9,861
10,327
10,327
Total Non-Resident Population
4,958
5,902
7,140
7,900
8,660
88,951
97,683
105,289
113,357
118,630
2021
2026
Total RRC Population Projection (ERP plus NRP)
Table 25 – Queensland Government ERP Projection Summary
2011
2016
2031
Growth
Rate % ^
2008 Queensland Government ERP Projections
2008 Low Series Projection
82,239
85,130
87,578
89,947
92,284
0.6%
2008 Medium Series Projection
83,590
87,940
91,715
95,373
98,970
0.8%
2008 High Series Projection
84,641
90,122
94,936
99,683
104,393
1.1%
98,101
103,772
1.2%
2011 Queensland Government ERP Projections
2011 Medium Series Projection
82,192
87,156
92,613
2013 Queensland Government ERP Projections
2013 Low Series Projection
78,939
85,800
91,675
97,105
102,539
1.3%
2013 Medium Series Projection
78,939
86,688
94,045
100,986
108,031
1.6%
2013 High Series Projection
78,939
87,421
96,191
104,647
113,318
1.8%
^Average annual population growth rate between 2011 and 2031
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 79
7.2
Employment
As of 30 June 2012, the number of employed persons in urban based employment in the
Rockhampton region is modelled in the PAM to be 34,036 (refer to Section 5.1.1). By 2031, it is
projected that the total urban based employment in the Rockhampton Region will be 60,783
persons. Figure 23 below shows a comparison between employment and population projections
(ERP plus NRP).
140,000
120,000
Persons
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011
2016
2021
RRC Population Projection (ERP plus NRP)
2026
2031
RRC Employment Projection
Figure 23 - RRC Population and Employment Projections
A summary of employment projections at a sub-regional scale and inside and outside the PIA is
shown in Table 26. Employment projections for sub-regional areas are shown in Figure 24.
Table 26 - Employment Projection Summary
2012
2016
2021
(Existing)
Employment Projection by Sub-Regional Area
Rockhampton City Area Employment
31,538
37,170
41,150
Fitzroy Area Employment
1,908
2,968
5,954
Mount Morgan Area Employment
590
590
590
Employment Projection Summary
Total Employment in PIA
33,106
39,798
46,722
Total Employment Outside PIA
929
929
971
Total RRC Employment
34,036
40,728
47,694
2026
2031
44,292
10,545
590
46,298
13,895
590
54,385
1,042
55,427
59,741
1,042
60,783
Page 80 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
50,000
45,000
40,000
Employees
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2011
2016
2021
Rockhampton City Area Employment
2026
2031
Fitzroy Area Employment
Mount Morgan Area Employment
Figure 24 - Employment Projections for Sub-Regional Areas
As shown in Figure 25, it is projected that retail and industrial development will drive employment
growth, with steady growth in commercial based employment. As shown in Table 3 in Section 0, the
retail category includes a broad range of retail land uses including shops and shopping centres
through to food and drink outlets and the service industry. In comparison, the commercial category
includes office type land uses.
30,000
25,000
Employees
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2011
2016
Retail
Commercial
2021
Industrial
2026
2031
Community Purposes
Figure 25 - Employment Projections by Employment Category
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 81
It was found that employment as a percentage of the population varied across the region and was
dependent on the availability and sequencing of employment generating development in each subregional area. Table 27 shows sub-regional employment as a percentage of sub-regional estimated
resident population (ERP).
Table 27 - Sub-Regional Employment as a Percentage of Sub-Regional ERP
Rockhampton City Area
Fitzroy Area
Mount Morgan Area
2012
48%
13%
19%
2016
53%
17%
19%
2021
55%
31%
19%
2026
55%
47%
19%
2031
56%
58%
18%
Table 27 demonstrates that employment as a percentage of population varies across the subregions. It also shows that the Fitzroy area will significantly increase this percentage from 13% in
2012 to 58% in 2031. This may be an indicator that inter-regional travel between place of residence
and place of work (particularly travel from the Fitzroy area to work in Rockhampton City) may
change as the Fitzroy area begins to be able to offer more employment.
Page 82 | Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2
7.3
Achieved Density
A comparison of the maximum possible dwelling per hectare yield and the average dwelling yield
achieved in the PAM on residential greenfield land (> 2,500m2) is shown in Table 28.
The selection criteria used to select parcels for analysis are:
• Parcels with an area larger than 2,500m2 – this ensures that only greenfield land is analysed;
• Parcel with growth potential (i.e. Ultimate number of dwellings > Existing number of
dwellings);
• Ultimate number of detached dwellings does not equal 1 – this removes any already
subdivided vacant lots
Table 28 - Comparison Between Maximum Possible Dwelling Yield and Average Achieved Dwelling
Yield for Greenfield Residential Land
QPP Residential Zone
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
Emerging community
Rural residential
Maximum Possible
Yield (dwellings/ha
of net developable
area)
15.3
17.4
610.0
15.3
0.5
Average Yield
Achieved in PAM
(dwellings/ha of net
developable area)
11.7
16.0
610.0
11.3
0.5
Average
Achieved Lot
Size Per
Dwelling (m2)
855
625
16
883
20,000
Table 28 shows that after constrained land is removed the achieved yield is often less than the
assumed density assumption for each zone. Consequently the achieved minimum lot size is often
larger than the assumed minimum lot size for each zone. The current trend is towards reduced lot
sizes in new master planned developments. For this reason, the higher assumed yields have been
retained for planning purposes.
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 | Page 83
Appendices
Appendix A – Density Assumptions Table
Appendix B – Zoning
Appendix C – Precincts
Appendix D – Building Heights
Appendix E – PAM Reporting Areas
Appendix F – Constraints
Appendix G – Ultimate Dwelling Capacity
Appendix H – Ultimate Population Capacity
Appendix I – Ultimate GFA Capacity
Appendix J – Ultimate Employment Capacity
Appendix K – Development Probability
Appendix L – Development Sequencing Assumptions
Appendix M – Priority Infrastructure Area
Rockhampton Regional Council – Planning Assumptions Report Version 2 |
This page has been intentionally left blank.