Regulating urban development around major accident hazard pipelines: a systems comparison of governance frameworks in Australia and the UK

Abstract

Buried high-pressure natural gas pipelines crisscross both urban and rural areas transporting fuel gas from where it is produced to where we use it. The general public is mostly unaware of their existence, but the consequences of failure are significant. The most common cause of failure of such pipelines is from third-party activities, particularly excavation around a pipeline. As a result, urban expansion to accommodate growing cities in historically rural areas containing high-pressure pipelines poses a significant risk given that a pipeline rupture and fire can cause multiple fatalities over a significant area. Currently, this risk is managed with varying degrees of success, with competing stakeholder needs and conflicts in regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions resulting in a lack of awareness of risk, or responsibility shifting between stakeholders. In worst cases, homes and infrastructure have been built in close proximity to pipelines with no prior consultation with relevant experts. This paper uses a systems approach to understand the effects of regulatory frameworks on practices in three case study sites, two in Australia and one in the UK, that manage development around pipelines in different ways. The comparative case studies, informed by interview data with stakeholders and a desktop analysis of regulation and policy, highlight how the different regulatory processes within the three governance systems shape different outcomes in stakeholder practices and pipeline safety and community amenity. A systems approach to evaluation sheds light on the limitations of some reductionist efforts to address the issue by stakeholders and highlights more systemic opportunities for regulatory reform.