Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW
TASK 1
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AND

STRUCTURE PLANS
ASSESSMENT
Report Prepared by
The Planning Group WA
for
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure
on behalf of the
Western Australian Planning Commission
LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW TASK 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to provide an investigation into the residential subdivision design
trends and the level of compliance with the Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) policy that has
been on trial since 1997. Compliance with the LN policy is not mandatory and residential
subdivision and structure plan applications were able to be submitted under the alternate
Development Control (DC) Policy.
This study has been undertaken by The Planning Group for the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure (DPI) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). It
involves the analysis of 85 subdivision plans and 20 structure plans received between the
years of 1996 and 2002. The purpose of the study is to identify design trends in structure
plans and subdivision applications and to examine the extent to which the principles of the
trial policy are being adopted. This work will assist the WAPC in its LN policy review, due to
commence in 2003/04.
The DPI provided sample structure plans and subdivision applications for the review. These
covered a range of geographic locations and were submitted to the WAPC between 1996 and
2002 inclusive. The sample applications are representative of all the applications over 50 lots
submitted to DPI between 1996 and 2002. The methodology used qualitative and
quantitative approaches to assess the applications.
The conclusions of the study are:

1. Interconnected street network neighbourhoods were evident in the year the LN policy
was introduced.
2. There is a trend toward design in accordance with LN policy. This is evident in the
pattern of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout.
3. LN proposed neighbourhoods centred on mixed use commercial centres located at key
intersections. There are few examples of this in the applications assessed.
4. Applications over the study period showed a trend towards a greater range of public
parkland located where it is visible and accessible. This represents a movement towards
LN policy.
5. The introduction of the LN policy appeared to have a minimal impact on the range of
residential densities. Only a small increase in densities occurs in subdivision
applications. These tend to be related to a feature such as a park or commercial centre.
6. There was little evidence of main street neighbourhood centre development within the
sample. Where commercial centres are integrated within the residential area, they
usually consist of one single block.
7. It was difficult to deliver a comprehensive LN response in small applications (less than
100 lots). Smaller applications do not tend to consist of an entire neighbourhood.
Therefore, it is difficult to assess the application on elements often distributed throughout
a neighbourhood.
8. By 2000, most applications incorporated significant elements of LN policy. Even prior to
2000 few applications strictly followed DC policy.
9. Properly prepared structure plans appear to result in better designed and integrated
subdivision applications.
It is important to note that the structure plans and subdivisions were not detailed enough to
determine their level of compliance with aspects such as Urban Water Management, Utilities
and other detail design requirements. Furthermore, it has not been possible to assess the
applications in relation to contours and views as this information was rarely presented.
THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 2

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4
2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 PLAN SELECTION METHOD....................................................................................... 5
2.3 SELECTION OF INDICATORS .................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Structure Plan Assessment Indicators ..................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Subdivision Application Assessment Indicators ...................................................... 7
2.4 ASSESSMENT ISSUES ............................................................................................... 9
2.5 STATISTICAL LIMITATIONS........................................................................................ 9
3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS................................................................................................... 10
4 KEY CHANGES ................................................................................................................... 46
4.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 46
4.2 DESIGN TRENDS ....................................................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Neighbourhood and Town Structure ...................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Integrated Development ......................................................................................... 46
4.2.3 Local Identity ........................................................................................................... 46
4.2.4 Street And Lot Layout ............................................................................................. 47
4.2.5 Mix Of Uses And Employment ............................................................................... 47
4.2.6 Public Parkland ....................................................................................................... 47
4.2.7 Schools.................................................................................................................... 47
4.3 OVERALL TRENDS .................................................................................................... 47
5 KEY AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 49
5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 49
5.2 DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 49
5.2.1 Clustering of neighbourhoods ................................................................................ 49
5.2.2 Interconnectivity to other neighbourhoods............................................................. 50
5.2.3 Inclusion of local centres ........................................................................................ 50
5.2.4 Configuration of centres.......................................................................................... 50
5.2.5 Road hierarchy........................................................................................................ 50
5.2.6 Density variations.................................................................................................... 50
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 51
6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 51
6.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 51
7 APPENDICES
7.1 APPENDIX 1 – 1996 – 2002 APPLICATION DATA
7.2 APPENDIX 2 –INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT
7.3 APPENDIX 3 – ASSESSMENT INDICATORS
7.4 APPENDIX 4 – ASSESSMENT RAW DATA
7.5 APPENDIX 5 – APPLICATION DETAILS OF ASSESSED PLANS
7.6 APPENDIX 6 – METROPOLITAN APPLICATIONS MAP

1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an investigation into the residential subdivision design
trends and the level of compliance with the Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) policy that has
been on trial since 1997. Compliance with the LN policy is not mandatory, and residential
subdivision and structure plan applications were able to be submitted under the alternate
Development Control (DC) Policy.
Scope
This study was undertaken by The Planning Group for the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure (DPI) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). It
involves the analysis of 85 subdivision plans and 20 structure plans received between the
years of 1996 and 2002. The objective of the study is to identify design changes in structure
plans and subdivisions and to examine the extent to which the principles of the WAPC’s trial
LN policy are being adopted.
Methodology
The DPI provided sample structure plans and subdivision applications for the review. These
covered a range of geographic locations and were submitted to the WAPC between 1996 and
2002 inclusive. The sample applications are representative of all applications over 50 lots
submitted to DPI between 1996 and 2002. The methodology used qualitative and
quantitative approaches to assess the applications.
The methodology for selecting the sample is outlined in Chapter 2 Assessment Methodology.
This section also outlines the approach taken to determining the performance indicators.
All applications were assessed using a combination of qualitative and quantitative
approaches. The Application Data, Indicator Development and Assessment Indicators are
tabled in Appendix 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The applications are available for inspection at
the DPI. The Application Details of Assessed Plans are tabled in Appendix 5.
Assessment
The assessment outcomes are presented as graphs and discussed in Chapter 3 Assessment
Results. The Raw Data is provided in Appendix 4.
Key Changes
Chapter 4 Key Changes provides a detailed outline of trends in subdivision design based on
the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the sample applications.
Key Areas of Non-Compliance

Chapter 5 Key Areas of Non-Compliance assumes that certain aspects of LN should be
complied with regardless of whether the application is made under DC policy or LN policy.
The section therefore identifies areas of conformance and non-conformance. In practice,
approval under LN requires compliance with a range of detailed requirements that were not
investigated in this study.
Conclusions
The study provides Chapter 6 Conclusions, which identifies trends, the extent to which the
industry has adopted LN and the influence of structure plans on subdivision applications.

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to outline the method used to select the applications for the
study and the approach used to develop the performance indicators. This section also
outlines the study limitations that have arisen due to the poor quality of some application
plans.
2.2 PLAN SELECTION METHOD

The subdivisions and structure plans reviewed in Task 1 were selected by DPI officers. The
WAPC resolved that these should cover the years 1996 to 2002 inclusive and be applications
in excess of 50 lots. It was also desirable that the applications chosen should be statistically
representative, of both local governments (LG) and consulting firms (designers).
20 subdivisions were chosen from the year for 1996 and 2002, and 8 for each intervening
year Later an additional 5 subdivisions were included to ensure that a more representative
cross section was achieved. This increased the total number of subdivision applications to
105.
The selection was made on the following principles:
• in general, larger (than 100 lot) applications were chosen as they enabled more
performance indicators to be measured;
• the total number of applications, by LG was determined for each year. The chosen
number of applications was proportional to the activity within LG areas;
• the number of subdivision applications by planning consultant was determined for each
year, and the chosen applications responded to the consultants doing the majority of
work. Examples from smaller firms were also included to ensure that a range of design
responses were assessed; and
• regional applications were included in most years. However, in some years (eg 2000 and
2001) there were few applications over 50 lots outside the metropolitan area.
In total the sample was selected from some 630 subdivision applications over 50 lots
submitted to the DPI between 1996 and 2002. All of these proposed subdivisions in excess of
50 were lots. The total number of subdivision applications received by the WAPC in this
period by LG, are shown on Table 1- Appendix 1. Six local governments contributed over
55% of these applications, as shown on Table 2- Appendix 1. The expectations of these LG’s
could have had a major impact on design trends.
Table 3- Appendix 1 shows the number of applications by year and by consultant. A
representative cross section of structure plans was more difficult to identify, as they are
generally not formally registered and tracked by DPI or the WAPC. Accordingly, officers in the
statutory teams were consulted to ensure that a representative cross section of examples
was obtained. It was not possible to obtain five examples from 2002. The structure plans
selected for the review are shown in Table 5- Appendix 1.
The location of selected sites is shown in Appendix 6.

2.3 SELECTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

To ensure that the structure plans and subdivisions were assessed under LN, all LN
objectives were listed and constantly referred to during the formulation of the performance
indicators and the assessments themselves. The brief included a set of preliminary indicators
that were developed by the DPI (included in Table1- Appendix 2). These were used as the
primary reference point for the further development of the indicators.
The steps taken to select and formulate the final assessment measures for applications are
outlined below. These steps are to be read in conjunction with the full indicator matrix in
Appendix 3.
1. All LN objectives were listed;

2. For each objective, measurable design elements were identified;
3. The measures were ranked and assessed in accordance with their measurability,
appropriateness and robustness to develop the performance indicators;
4. Those measures that were identified as highly measurable, appropriate and robust
were developed further;
5. The 21 Final Performance Indicators were analysed and developed into a set of in-
house criteria, which were used as the basis for analysis.
2.3.1 Structure Plan Assessment Indicators

The structure plan assessment indicators were drawn from the objectives of LN Element 1:
Community Design.
Element 1 focuses on the spatial location of uses and the clustering of neighbourhoods. It is
based on context and identity, requiring a more “place-making” approach to the use and form
of the design.
Structure plans are intended to provide guidance for more detailed plans, thus the information
they exhibit is critical. An assessment was undertaken to determine the extent to which
structure plans provide the information identified within Element 1. This is an indication for
the usefulness of this information as a guide to future development. The criteria used to
determine this is listed in Table 1 Indicators – Structure Plan (Quality of Information).
Element 1 addresses issues for larger subdivisions and structure plans, which is the reason
for duplication of objectives in other elements. However, there are several key design
objectives that should be addressed in structure plans. A summary of the performance
indicators was developed to assess the conformance of structure plans. These are outlined
in Table 2 Indicators – Structure Plan Performance.
TABLE 1 INDICATORS – STRUCTURE PLAN (QUALITY OF INFORMATION)

1. Did SP show clusters of walkable catchments?
2. Did SP show existing and proposed commercial?
3. Are natural features retained?
4. Are proposed street blocks shown?
5. Is a street hierarchy shown?
6. Are movement networks shown?
7. Is density defined?
8.
Are land uses defined?
9. Is parkland identified?
10. Are urban water management features identified?

TABLE 2 – INDICATORS – STRUCTURE PLAN PERFORMANCE

The indicators are numbered in relation to the information requirements stated in Table 1
1a Type of Centre
Is there a density increase, and if so where does it occur?
1b Walkable catchment
Centre specific study of walkability based on catchment modelling (detailed on page 83 of
LN)
2 Number of links to commercial centre
Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the
ease of access.
4a Number of street blocks >620m perimeter in relation to total number of blocks.
Percentage of oversized blocks to regular sized blocks indicating walkability and
permeability.
4b Number of blocks orientated N/S-E/W
Measures lot orientation appropriateness using the solar diagram in p 54 of LN
5 Number of road width increments
Measurement of different road types (based on increments in street width) indicating
legibility of networks and a managed street network.
6. Movement networks
Is a clear legible street hierarchy identified.
7. Where does density increase?
Identifies whether density is located where it supports a centre, draws value from an area
of high amenity or in some other way has a context for its location.
8.
Land Uses
Are a range of land uses identified? LN reinforces the importance of local centres, local
jobs and mixed-use development.
9a. Number of blocks within 400m of park
LN seeks a distribution of parkland in proximity to recreational opportunities.
9b. Are parks combined?
Parks, when combined with other uses, create a stronger node in the neighbourhood
10.
Are Urban Water Management features combined with POS?
LN permits and supports the use of parks as water management area.
Supplementary
Measurement Ease of site
Assists in the evaluation of whether site issues affect the ability of a proponent to comply
with LN.
2.3.2 Subdivision Application Assessment Indicators

The subdivision application assessment indicators were based upon Elements 2 to 7 of LN
policy. These elements focus more on site-specific objectives and requirements. Overall
design responses to the objectives of Movement, Lot Layout and Public Parkland are usually
evident on subdivision plans. Responses to Urban Water Management and Utilities Sections
are not usually evident on subdivision plans.
The intention of this report is to determine which LN policy objectives are being met and
which are not. The study does not attempt to rank or score the overall quality of subdivision
design. Subsequently the assessment indicators were not ranked or weighted.

TABLE 3 INDICATORS – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

Note – A detailed explanation of the indicators is provided in Appendix 3
1. Percentage of lot density increase around centres in relation to standard lot size.
Explanation Is there a density increase, and if so where does it occur?
2. Type of centre for walkability assessment
Explanation Is the centre a neighbourhood centre, town centre, park or other feature?
3. Percentage of walkable blocks (>620m perimeter)
Explanation Percentage of oversized street blocks to regular sized blocks indicating walkability.
4. Walkability (walkable catchment or pedshed)
Explanation Centre specific study of walkability based on catchment modelling (detailed on page 83 of LN)
5. Evidence of road hierarchy
Explanation Measurement of different road types (based on increments in street width) indicating legibility of
networks and a managed street network.
6. Number of commercial lots served by rear laneways
Explanation Measurement of the presence of lanes or access streets behind centres indicating a main-street
intersection based centre (rather than a retail complex on a single lot).
7. Percentage of convenient linkages to commercial centres
Explanation Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the ease of
access.
8. Percentage of vehicular access points to 100 lots
Explanation Indication of the extent to which the neighbourhood forms part of the urban fabric or is divided
from it as an estate on the side of a highway.
9. Percentage of pedestrian network links to 100 lots
Explanation Identifies pedestrian network links into and out of the neighbourhood.
10. Number of connections to a neighbourhood connector per kilometre
Explanation Identifies whether the neighbourhood is well connected to the neighbourhood connector.
11. Weighted intersections per kilometre
Explanation Calculates the number of connected road ends (4 ways and T junctions) in relation to the
number of dead ends and disorientating road kinks. Identifies legibility and permeability.
12. Number of bands in the range of lot size.
Explanation Identifies number of significantly different lot size increments as an indicator of likely housing
variety.
13 Percentage of lots that may facilitate energy efficiency (N-S or E-W)
Explanation Measures lot orientation appropriateness using the solar diagram in p 54 of LN
14. Percentage of residential frontage onto POS
Explanation Identifies the percentage of POS perimeter fronted by lots that will contain active use. Large
and small parks are measured and averaged.
2
15. Percentage of lots under 350m
Explanation Measures the number of ‘small lots’ in the neighbourhood.
16. Percentage of orthogonal lot configurations
Explanation Identifies the number of rectangular lots. Rectangular lots facilitate a wider range of uses and
robustness (redevelop-ability).
17. Percentage of lots with lane access.
Explanation Lanes provide increased flexibility of design and ease of retro-fitting. Robustness is a LN
requirement.
18. Percentage of dwellings within 400m of park
Explanation Indicates that an acceptable distribution of parks has occurred.
19. Parks that are combined with community facilities, schools
Explanation Identifies whether parks are combined with other uses.
20. Urban Water Management features
Explanation Use of park land and other areas, including streets, for urban water management.
SUPPLEMENTARY INDICATORS (MODIFIERS)
Lot Numbers
Explanation Indication of the number of blocks making it possible to derive percentage of lots achieving
requirements. May help to explain lack of performance on a number of indicators that may be
difficult to respond to in a small development.
Ease of site
Explanation Indication of the complexity of site development possibly explaining limited compliance with LN.
Not Applicable (NA)
Explanation Indicates that the measure does not apply to the particular case study rather than that it has
failed to provide required response.

2.4 ASSESSMENT ISSUES

The LN policy requires additional information to be provided with structure plans and
subdivision applications, in the form of a supporting report or on the plans in the form of
annotations. A small number of structure plans provided this information, but in general,
supporting information was rarely included and therefore could not be assessed.
The following tables indicate the range of assessment issues which were identified and how
they were addressed.
TABLE 4 - STRUCTURE PLAN ASSESSMENT ISSUES

ISSUE SOLUTION
No north arrow. Check with cover sheet plan provided by DPI.
No scale. Determined from other sources.
No walkable catchments shown. Could not assess. Considered adding walkable catchment circles to
plans but concluded it was inappropriate to assess the structure plan on
the basis of a best guess at the intended neighbourhood clustering.
No proposed centres shown. Assumed where possible, based on what was shown.
No existing centres shown. Assumed where possible, based on what was shown.
No road hierarchy annotated. Assumed from design features where possible (e.g. inclusion of a median
in a centrally located road taken to indicate higher order use).
No colour coding. Could not assess range of uses.
No block layouts. Could not assess block walkability or orientation.
No existing features shown. Could not assess indicators relating to retention of natural and existing
features. Could not assess existing context and relationship to the
proposal.
No Context to surrounding areas Could not assess performance relating to location. Could not assess
shown. those indicators requiring external detail.
Identification of major open space. Major open spaces are not always identified as open space.
TABLE 5 - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT ISSUES

ISSUE SOLUTION
No North Arrow. Check with cover sheet plan provided by DPI.
No Scale. Lengths calculated by reducing or enlarging a standard scale rule to
create a customised ruler. Areas calculated using a grid of squares and
recorded as a ratio of percentage.
No Walkable Catchments Shown. Manually calculated pedshed and walkable catchment. Time consuming.
Indication of Lot Sizes. Lot sizes are generally shown or density stated.
No Indication of Uses. Where use is not shown a not applicable (N/A) is recorded in the data.
No Context Shown. Inclusion of context is very rare. Impact of context excluded from
analysis of all applications to ensure consistency.
No Road Width Dimensions Shown. Shown in about half the applications. Measured manually if not shown.
No Footpaths or Dual Use Paths Footpaths and Dual Use Paths rarely shown.
Shown.
Location and Size of Public Open New POS lots are shown but the nature, rights of access and dimensions
Space. of existing spaces and reserves adjacent to the development are rarely
noted. To avoid inconsistency between plans where the spaces are
explained and those where they are not, the assessment excluded any
space outside the study area from assessment.
Location and proposed urban water Little or no information is provided therefore these could not be assessed.
management features.
2.5 STATISTICAL LIMITATIONS

The total number of plans was sufficient to achieve an accurate representation of applications
over the assessment period of 7 years. However, some individual years were only
represented by 8 applications, which is not adequate to confidently assume an accurate test
sample. The practical implications of this limitation can be seen through the sensitivity of
results when separated by year. The sample timeframe of 1996 to 2002 provides only a
‘snapshot’ of a longer evolution of design trends and ultimately whether applications are
adopting LN principles.
Some consultants have been practicing design with urbanism and LN principles since 1996.
Likewise, other consultants have no regard to LN principles in 2002. This difference in
practice has tainted the results in some way and can be seen clearly in the analysis.

3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

3.1 Structure Plans
Type of Centre around which density is clustered.
TYPE OF CENTRE
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
POS Neighbourhood Town Centre District Centre None Proposed
Centre
type of centre
Explanation:
Is there a density increase and if so where does it occur?
Sample:
This graph shows the type of centre around which density has been clustered. It is not
chronological. It shows the density does occur around POS and centres.
Commentary:
The graph shows that in a high number of structure plans no density was shown at the
structure plan stage. As guiding density is one of the roles of a structure plan, this
indicates that the role is not properly performed.

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED
Walkability
WALKABILITY
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
structure plan 1996-2002
Explanation:
Centre-specific study of walkability based on catchment modelling (detailed on page 83 of
LN)
Sample:
This graph shows each assessed structure plan for which a result could be determined.
Structure plans are in chronological order, that is, lower numbers are from 1996/97, higher
number are 2001/02.
Commentary:
The graph shows that most structure plans are achieving a reasonable level of walkability.
There are some structure plans that performed very poorly. There is no strong trend over
time.

Number of links to commercial centres
NUMBER OF LINKS TO COMMERCIAL CENTRES
12
10
8
number of links
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Explanation:
Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the ease
of access.
Sample:
number are 2001/02.
Commentary:
The graph shows that there has not been a significant increase in the number of links to
commercial centres. The average number of links achieved is 3 to 4. Three links indicates
that the centre is on the periphery of the developments. The structure plan with 10 links
included higher order centres.

Percentage of walkable blocks.
% OF WALKABLE BLOCKS
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Explanation:
Number of street blocks <620m perimeter in relation to total number of blocks expressed as a
percentage.
Sample:
number are 2001/02.
Commentary:
This indicator is based on assessing the number of blocks that exceed the allowable
perimeter in LN (as derived from maximum width and maximum length).
All structure plans performed well. Observation suggests that this is due to the generous
provisions in LN. Early structure plans included many very long blocks and a lower level of
permeability. These blocks still did not exceed the allowable block size.

Percentage of blocks that may facilitate energy efficiency.
% OF BLOCKS WHICH MAY FACILITATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Explanation:
Measures lot orientation appropriateness using the solar diagram on pg 54 of LN
Sample:
number are 2001/02.
Commentary:
The results are erratic but suggest a trend toward improved solar orientation. This is
supported by the qualitative assessment.

Number of road width increments
EVIDENCE OF STREET HIERARCY
5
number of road width increments
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Explanation:
Measurement of different road width types indicating legibility of networks and a managed
street network. Assessed as street width increments, where an increase of more than two
metres is classified as an increment but a single increase of 4 or more metres is not classified
as two increments.
Sample:
number are 2001/02.
Commentary:
Structure Plans include District Distributor Integrator A’s and District Distributor Integrator B’s
down to Access Streets and therefore include up to 4 increments easily. The hierarchy
within the neighbourhood is important but not required at the structure plan stage.

Movement networks
EVIDENCE OF MOVEMENT NETWORKS
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pedestrian Cycle Public Transport
type of movement network
Explanation:
Is a clear legible street hierarchy identified?
Sample:
The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregated
into an average, for the evidence of different movement networks.
Commentary:
The results show that structure plans provide very little indication of the intended movement
networks. Based on the information provided in the plan alone, as a guide to integrated
development, they fall short. Qualitatively the level of information has improved over time
but not dramatically.

Where does density increase
WHERE DOES DENSITY INCREASE
6
number of projects
0
POS Town Centre Local Centre District Centre No Increase
location of density increase
Explanation:
Identifies whether density is located: where it supports a centre, draws value from an area of
high amenity or in some other way has a context for its location.
Sample:
into an average for a summary of where density does increase.
Commentary:
The graph shows that many structure plans provided no indication of density increase. Six
indicated density around public open space (POS). Few structure plans indicated density
around centres. This is partly due to the lack of these centres within the structure plan, as is
the case with district centres. However, more structure plans included increased density
around town centres than local centres.

Land Uses
LAND USES EVIDENT
12
10
number of instances
0
Primary School High School Community Town Centre Commercial Mixed Use District Centre
Centre
land uses defined
Explanation:
Are a range of land uses other than residential identified? LN reinforces the importance of
local centres, local jobs and mixed-use development.
Sample:
into a combined total of each of the uses included in the structure plans.
Commentary:
The graph indicates that some structure plans did show a range of land uses. The structure
plans mostly lacked an integration of other uses.

Number of blocks within 400m of park
% OF BLOCKS WITHIN 400M OF POS
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Explanation:
LN seeks a distribution of parkland to proximity of recreational opportunities. .
Sample:
This graph shows, in chronological order, each assessed structure plan for which a result
could be determined.
Commentary:
It is evident that all structure plans, with the exception of the first few years, include an
appropriate distribution and accessibility of Public Open Space.

Are parks combined?
% OF POS WHICH IS COMBINED
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Centre Primary School High School Community Centre Other
Explanation:
Parks, when combined with other uses, create a stronger node in the neighbourhood
Sample:
into an average percentage for the evidence of % of the number of public open spaces that
are combined with other uses.
Commentary:
The graph shows that public open space is combined with primary schools more than any
other use. It was observed that the size of these public open spaces were smaller as
parkland was more distributed across the neighbourhood. Combining POS with other uses is
still very limited.

Are Urban Water Management features combined with POS?
% OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES COMBINED
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No No Information
Explanation:
LN permits and supports the use of parks as water management area.
Sample:
into a percentage of structure plans that showed Urban Water Management UWM features
combined with Public Open Space.
Commentary:
Structure Plans show water management features combined with public open space in 60% of
cases. This may be higher as UWM may be combined but not shown on the plan. The exact
nature of the UWM approach is not stated. The UWM features could be dry swales,
constructed wetlands or ornamental lakes. The latter is popular in development but often in
conflict with good water management techniques.

Site Ease
SITE EASE
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
ease category
Explanation:
Assists in the evaluation of whether site issues affect the ability of a proponent to comply with
LN.
Sample:
The graph shows the percentage of total structure plans that have fallen into a particular
category of site difficulty/ ease.
5 represents an odd shaped site with additional on site constraints (eg. gasline corridors).
4 represents either odd shaped site or additional on-site constraints.
3 equals either odd shaped site or additional on-site constraints, or a combination but of a
lesser impact.
2 equals a site that had constraints but these were configured in such a way as to have only
minimal impact, if any.
1 represents the ideal site with no constraints in shape or condition.
Commentary:
65% of sites had site constraints that may impact on design. It is impossible to determine
whether these represent an actual constraint on implementing LN. A barrier in one design
option may be a desirable feature under another. It is evident that there are few sites where
an idealised LN model can be rolled out according to a pure LN clustered neighbourhood
model.

SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
Percentage of lot density increase around centres.
WHERE DOES DENSITY INCREASE
100
90
80
percentage of projects %
70
60 No increase
Park
50 Centre
40 Other
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Is there a density increase, and if so where does it occur?
Sample:
The graph shows where density increases in subdivisions applications on an annual basis
for the study period
Commentary:
There is a trend towards locating density where it has a relationship to a feature in the
neighbourhood. Density is quite often related to public open space.

SUBDIVISION PLANS CONTINUED
Total number of lots proposed.
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED
6000
5000
4000
number of lots
3000
2000
1000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
The total number of lots proposed.
Sample:
The graph shows the total number of lots proposed each year from the sample.
Commentary:
The graph shows that there are fluctuations in the total number of lots proposed. Larger
subdivisions may have several hundred lots, yet there are some years where the total
number of lots is only around 2000 lots. These equate to an average of 200 lots. At this
scale, it is difficult to assess the development against the performance indicators and difficult
to create a neighbourhood. This accounts for the low scores in 1999 across a range of PI’s
as indicated in the following graphs. The increased size and number of applications in 1996
and 2002 also influences the outcomes adding to the level of performance.

SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS CONTINUED
Type of centre for walkability assessment
TYPE OF CENTRE FOR PEDSHED AND WALKABILITY
100
90
percentge of total projects %
80
70
60 Not applicable
Park
50 Centre
40 Other
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Is the centre a neighbourhood centre, town centre, park or other feature?
Sample:
The graph indicates what type of centre was used to assess walkability in subdivision
applications, as an average of the total number of subdivisions assessed in a year for each
years of the study period. As the highest order centre is always used, the graph also shows
the type of centres that are being provided.
Commentary:
It remains difficult to determine what the centre of the neighbourhood should be.
Observations conclude that subdivisions are often too small to create a strong neighbourhood
structure. There has been an increase in the use of public open space as a central
neighbourhood feature.

Percentage of walkable blocks (>620m perimeter)
% of WALKABLE BLOCKS
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Percentage of oversized street blocks to regular sized blocks indicating walkability.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage of walkable blocks in subdivisions applications on
a per year basis for the study period, based on the LN indicative maximum block size.
Commentary:
Subdivisions now consist of fewer un-walkable blocks than they did at the beginning of the
study period. This is perhaps the single strongest indicator of the success of LN in increasing
the walkability of suburbs.

Walkability (walkable catchment or pedshed)
WALKABILITY
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Centre specific study of walkability based on catchment modelling (detailed on page 83 of
LN)
Sample:
The graph indicates the averaged percentage walkability in subdivisions applications on a
per year basis for the study period
Commentary:
The average walkability (35-45%) is not as high as it should be (60%). The drop in
walkability in 1999 is associated with smaller subdivisions

Evidence of road hierarchy
EVIDENCE OF STREET HIERARCHY
4
number of increments
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Measurement of different road types (based on increments in street width) indicating legibility
of networks and a managed street network.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged extent of road hierarchy increments in subdivision
applications on a per year basis for the study period
Commentary:
Averaged out there is no strong trend in terms of street hierarchy. Within a neighbourhood
subdivision a street hierarchy of 2-3 increments is adequate. The results show that
applications rarely include the higher order streets. These are not integrated into the design
reflecting the lack of jurisdiction over these roads. In 1999 the range dropped mostly due to
smaller size subdivision applications.

Number of commercial lots served by rear laneways
NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL CENTRES PROPOSED COMPARED

TO NUMBER OF CENTRES ACCESSED BY REAR LANEWAYS
7
# Centres
6 # Served by
laneways
5
number of centres
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Measurement of the presence of lanes or access streets behind centres indicating a main-
street intersection based centre (rather than a retail complex on a single lot).
Sample:
The graph shows the total number of centres proposed and the number of those serviced by
a laneway.
Commentary:
LN has not resulted in a greater number of integrated centres and there are very few centres
served by lanes. The results are an indication that neighbourhood and town centres based
on main street principles may not being occurring.

Percentage of convenient linkages to commercial centres
NUMBER OF CONVENIENT LINKS TO COMMERCIAL CENTRES
4
number of links
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the ease
of access.
Sample:
The graph shows the average number of links to centres in subdivision applications on a per
year basis for the study period.
Commentary:
The number of convenient links to commercial centres has dropped. As the number of
centres have dropped this result is to be expected. Observation suggests that individual
applications are now better connected to centres when they do occur. In 2001, no
applications were submitted with centres.

Percentage of vehicular access points per 100 lots
NUMBER OF VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS TO EXTERNAL

AREAS
4
number of links
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Indication of the extent to which the neighbourhood forms part of the urban fabric or is divided
from it as an estate on the side of a highway.
Sample:
The graph shows the average number of access points to external areas in subdivision
applications on a per year basis for the study period.
Commentary:
There is a strong trend towards better connectivity with surrounding areas and major roads.
This indicates that applications are becoming more integrated. This being the case, they are
more likely to be able to evolve into mixed use neighbourhoods over time. This is a
significant change and a very clear movement from DC policy that encourages “cell” planning,
to LN which encourages integration.

Number of pedestrian network links per 100 lots
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS
4
number of pedestrian access points
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies pedestrian network links in and out of the neighbourhood.
Sample:
The graph shows the average number of pedestrian access ways as a ratio to number of
blocks in subdivision applications on a per year basis for the study period.
Commentary:
The trend is towards a reduced number of public access-ways. This highlights a movement
towards a street based pedestrian movement system. This is a significant move towards LN
policy.

Number of connections to a neighbourhood connector per kilometre
NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS TO A NEIGHBOURHOOD

CONNECTOR PER KM
16
14
number of connections
12
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies whether the neighbourhood is well connected to the neighbourhood connector.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged number of connections to neighbourhood connectors in
subdivision applications on a per year basis for the study period.
Commentary:
Apart from a drop in 1999 (resulting from smaller number of lot subdivisions), the trend is
towards a greater number of connections to neighbourhood connectors. This highlights a
movement towards a more interconnected local street system. This is a significant move
towards LN policy.

Weighted intersections per kilometre
PERMEABILITY BY WEIGHTED INTERSECTIONS
7
weighted intersection value
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
-1
year
Explanation:
Calculates the number of connected road ends (4 ways and T junctions) in relation to the
number of dead ends and disorientating road kinks. Identifies legibility and permeability.
Sample:
The graph shows the sum value of intersection and road weightings in subdivision
applications on a per year basis for the study period, averaged for that year. Four ways and
three ways are scored positively whilst dead-ends and elbowed or roads that curve by 90
degrees or more are weighted negatively.
Commentary:
Apart from a drop in 1999 (resulting from smaller number of lot subdivisions) the trend is
towards a more direct, well connected and road system. This is a significant move towards
LN policy but it should be noted that in recent years the trend has not been as strong.

Number of bands in the range of lot size
RANGE OF LOT SIZES BY BAND
100
90
percentage of total projects
80
70
1 band
60
2 bands
50 3 bands
4 bands
40
5 bands
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies number of significantly different lot size increments as an indicator of likely housing
variety.
Sample:
The graph shows the number of subdivisions with no through to 5 bands range of lot size
over each year for the study period. The split is shown as a percentage of the whole number
of subdivisions received that year.
Commentary:
There has been a steady decline in mono density subdivisions accompanied by an increase
in ranges of lot sizes up to five increments in scope. This outcome would assist in creating a
more diverse range of housing choice supporting LN. Other indicators show that the number
of higher density lots is often very limited.

Percentage of lots that may facilitate energy efficiency (N-S or E-W)
NUMBER OF LOTS WHICH MAY FACILITATE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Measures lot orientation appropriateness using the solar diagram in p54 of LN.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage lots that may facilitate energy efficient designs in
subdivisions applications on a per year basis for the study period
Commentary:
There has not been an overall increase in solar orientated lots. Many recent applications
include fan shaped grids and integrated street systems that are not orientated north-south
east-west. The potential to align lots for solar orientation has not been taken, sometimes as
a result of over all site orientation.

Percentage of residential frontage onto POS
% OF POS WITH ACTIVE FRONTAGE
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies the percentage of POS perimeter fronted by lots that will contain active use. Large
and small parks are measured and averaged.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage of the extent to which public open space is
fronted by residential or mixed use development in subdivisions applications on a per year
basis for the study period
Commentary:
There has been a strong shift towards a great amount of frontage around public open space.
In part this has come about through the separation of school sites and parks, allowing
greater frontage. There has also been a shift towards providing a greater number of smaller
parks dispersed through the residential areas. This approach is a moment towards LN.

2
Percentage of lots under 350m
% OF LOTS UNDER 350M2
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Measures the number of ‘small lots’ in the neighbourhood.
Sample:
2
The graph shows the averaged percentage of lots under 350 m in subdivisions applications
on a per year basis for the study period
Commentary:
2 2
There are very few lots fewer than 350m . 350m blocks are more likely to result in two
storey and town centre style residential. The lack of these blocks indicates that the shift
towards LN is not resulting in the development of traditional medium density, mixed use
style neighbourhoods.

Percentage of orthogonal lot configurations
% OF ORTHOGONAL LOT CONFIGURATION
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies the number of rectangular lots. Rectangular lots facilitate a wider range of uses
and robustness (redevelop-ability).
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage of lots or rectangular shape in subdivisions
Commentary:
On average, the number of rectangular lots has not increased significantly. Lots that were
near to rectangular were included which resulted in high counts of these types of blocks.
Anecdotally, there are now a greater number of rectangular blocks due to reduced use of
curvilinear street layouts.

Percentage of lots with lane access.
% OF DESIGN WITH ALTERNATIVE ACCESS AND GARAGING
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Lanes provide increased flexibility of design and ease of retro-fitting. Robustness is a LN
requirement.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage of lots with alternative access in subdivisions
Commentary:
The use of laneways did not become common, despite their inclusion in developments as
early as 1996. Lanes are now included but limited. As lanes add robustness and flexibility
to lots, this indicator can be seen as a moderate movement towards more diverse and mixed
use neighbourhoods as supported by LN.

Percentage of dwellings within 400m of park
% OF DWELLING WITHIN 400M OF POS

100 100 100 100
100 98 99
97
90
percentage %
80
70
60
50
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Indicates that an acceptable distribution of parks has occurred.
Sample:
The graph shows the averaged percentage of dwellings that are within 400m of public open
space in subdivisions applications on a per year basis for the study period.
Commentary:
2
The percentage of dwellings within 400m of public open space has not increased
dramatically, but it can be seen that while 400m is actually a large distance early
applications were not always ensuring access to public open space. Based on this indicator,
ensuring that a significant number of lots are within 200m distance to a local park should not
be difficult to achieve.

Parks that are combined with community facilities, schools
% OF POS WHICH IS COMBINED
100
90
80
70
percentage %
60 None Proposed
Primary School
50 Community Centre
Other
40
No
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Identifies whether parks are combined with other uses.
Sample:
The graph shows the split of types of public open space relationship with other uses in
subdivisions applications as an averaged percentage on a per year basis for the study
period.
Commentary:
This indicator shows a decline in co-location of public open space. Given that public open
space was combined with schools in early years this can be seen as a positive in that open
space is now more distributed. The small amount of collocation in later years tends to be of
small parks rather than large parks.

Urban water management features
% OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES COMBINED
100
90
80 None
proposed
70 No
percentage %
60 Yes
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Use of parkland and other areas, including streets, for urban water management.
Sample:
The graph shows the split of types of public open space relationship with other uses in
subdivisions applications as an averaged percentage on a per year basis for the study
period.
Commentary:
The indicator does not show a clear trend. Few applications showed any detail on urban
water management

Ease of site
SITE EASE
100
90
80
percentage of projects
70
1
60
2
50 3
4
40
5
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year
Explanation:
Indication of the complexity of site development possibly explaining limited compliance with
LN.
Sample:
The graph shows the split of ratings of site ease as an averaged percentage, on a per year
basis, for the study period.
Commentary:
No sites were free of constraints. Many sites were constrained in form (e.g. odd shaped
edges) and due to on site constraints (e.g. vegetation corridors). As indicated by the year
1999, a small number of lot subdivisions have proportionally more site constraints. This
coincides with poorer performance in terms of other indicators.

4 KEY CHANGES
4.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

There was little change in the quality of supporting plan information on the subdivision
applications provided for this study over the 7 year period. This is despite significant
increases in the availability of data and mapping tools used by consultants. The study only
reviewed plans submitted for subdivision applications. There may have been improvements
in the quality of information included in supporting documentation.
As the quality of information provided falls short of that required by LN the issues is discussed
further under Section 5 – Key Areas of Non-Conformance.
4.2 DESIGN TRENDS

These comments are based on the quantitative data derived from the assessment and the
qualitative observations of the results. The quantitative data is tabled in Appendix 4.
4.2.1 Neighbourhood and Town Structure

• There has been a shift towards more clearly defined neighbourhood level centres
centrally located on neighbourhood connectors.
• The neighbourhood connector level intersections are often reinforced by the provision
of a park. Few of these centres include retail or other non residential development.
• Many subdivision applications are still designed without an integrated mixed use
centre, even where they do include a cluster of neighbourhoods.
• Subdivision applications that include a commercial centre still place the focus of this
centre on a single large block, located on a main road (DDIB or DDIA).
• Few structure plans are comprehensive enough or detailed enough to define the
regional structure for an area.
• Links to the commercial centres became more direct and greater in number over the
trial period.
4.2.2 Integrated Development

• The incidence of integrated development is sporadic.
• Strong regional road planning defines the road system. This still divides
neighbourhoods.
• There are few strong connections between neighbourhoods other than the regional
road structure.
• Where DPI designers have been involved in the structure planning (e.g. Canningvale
ODP), the degree of integration with other areas is higher than where they have not
been involved.
4.2.3 Local Identity

• Local identity was difficult to assess at structure plan level.
• There has been a strong increase in the creation of links that appear to offer vistas to
external features.
• Few internal features, other than parks, are addressed in this way.
• Increasingly, developments integrate with and front onto areas of significant open
space.

• There is a slight diversity in land use and residential density in subdivision

applications.
4.2.4 Street And Lot Layout

• The approach to street and lot layout has significantly changed since the inception of
LN.
• Although minimal, there were still a few designs with cul-de-sacs and segregated
pedestrian and vehicle movement systems.
• The LN driven and interconnected street layout orthogonal street blocks has replaced
a DC driven semi-interconnected street layout with curving roads and associated
wedge shaped blocks.
4.2.5 Mix of Uses and Employment

• Mix of land use and employment generation is difficult to determine from a structure
plan.
• More non-residential land is being included in late structure plans.
4.2.6 Public Parkland

• There has been a shift in distribution of public parkland in applications during the
study period.
• Early applications located Public Open Space at estate gateways or around the
suburban centre, often sat as one large area of play fields adjacent to a school.
• Public Open Space in later applications is more often divided into smaller parks and
used as a feature, in conjunction with other uses, to create mini nodes.
• A feature is now made of Regional Reserves through increased use of straight roads
with vistas of these spaces.
4.2.7 Schools
• Co-location of primary and high schools has declined.
• Schools are often co-located with a regional reserve or small park. They are less
often associated with a large park as in the past.
4.3 OVERALL TRENDS

• The movement towards an interconnected orthogonal street design predates LN.
• Larger developments are more likely to take the true form of the model they are being
prepared under, whether this is DC or LN policy. There were examples of the use of
LN principles in large developments in the years immediately after the introduction of
LN. Almost all larger developments now take the LN approach to urban
development.
• Large LN applications perform better than small LN applications because they
provide more opportunity to create neighbourhoods. The ‘per year’ data is affected by
variations in the modal scale of developments in that year.
• In later years, some applications do not follow LN principles, however almost all of
these applications incorporate some aspects of LN practices. Those that do not
incorporate LN principles are often part of a larger, older and predominantly DC
policy driven structure plan.
• Few applications face site conditions that preclude LN being used. There are
instances where, with some minor design revisions, the application would perform
well under LN. For example where an otherwise fine grain (in terms of street block

size) development includes a large block in a location where it isolates the

neighbourhood from the centre.
• Quality of design and the provision of appropriate plans and supporting information
appear closely linked.

5 KEY AREAS OF NON-CONFORMANCE
This section identifies the key areas where the applications failed to meet LN policy at the
broad level.
The applications that were assessed were originally submitted either under LN or DC policies.
For the following reasons the two were not separated in the assessment:
• Both policies require a certain level of information to be provided with the application.
• Both policies highlight certain design fundamentals such as the integration of parks,
schools and centres with residential development.
• LN has been written in response to the State Planning Strategy. While DC policies
are still an assessment alternative to LN, failure to meet some LN objectives and
requirements can be considered non-compliance with the higher level sustainability
principles.
• Increasingly, there is very little difference in design approach between plans
submitted under LN and those submitted under DC policy.
This should not be seen as grounds for perpetuity DC policies, there are areas where the DC
policies imply an urban form that is in conflict with LN. DC policies state that the main road
into the cell (the local distributor) should be designed to discourage use by outside traffic
(D.C. 1.4). LN requires the same order of road to act as a ‘neighborhood connector’ allowing
traffic to move between suburbs. The fact remains that there is a difference of design intent
subdivision under the two different sets of policies.
5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Lack of supporting information supplied by the applicant also limits the ability of the structure
plan to act as a guide for well-informed decision-making. Conversely, a well presented
structure plan usually results in a more interconnected and well designed subdivision.
There have been a number of difficulties in undertaking this study. The difficulties
predominantly relate to the lack of clear information on plans. This not only creates a delay,
but also makes it difficult to assess and determine the quality of an application. This problem
is likely to hinder the DPI in its assessment of applications and delay the planning process.
5.2 DESIGN
There has been a general movement towards LN, but there remains a distinct lack of full
implementation of the policy.
The most significant areas of non-conformance are:
1 Clustering of neighbourhoods
2 Inclusion of local centres
3 Incorrect configuration of centres
4 Lack of road hierarchy
5 Lack of density variations
6 Lack or interconnectivity to other neighbourhoods.
5.2.1 Clustering of neighbourhoods

All subdivision applications involved in this study were required to have a minimum of 50 lots.
Despite this, many were still designed with little or no attempt to integrate the development
into the surrounding urban fabric.

5.2.2 Interconnectivity to other neighbourhoods.

Towards the edge of developments, street blocks still tended to become larger and road
connections out of the neighbourhood were limited. Main access points were established
from major roads but extensions of neighbourhood connectors and linking up of access
streets was not comprehensively pursued.
5.2.3 Inclusion of local centres
The presence of local centres is very limited. This was in part due to the continuing desire to
reduce traffic through residential areas rather than encouraging some traffic, to support
economic vitality. The limited number of local centres may also be due to an unwillingness to
become involved in the development of a centre.
Where local centres have been established adjacent to the neighbourhood, they are
frequently configured to face a main road. As such, they ‘back’ onto the neighbourhood and
do not naturally encourage links or local visitors.
5.2.4 Configuration of centres
Centres, when provided, are usually a block with higher order roads on three or four sides.
This configuration leads naturally to a retail box model rather than a main street model.
5.2.5 Road hierarchy
Lack of road hierarchy was determined by recording the increments in road widths. Issues
that may be resolved in detail design, such as landscaping, create an identity for each street,
but are not included in the subdivision or structure planning stage.
5.2.6 Density variations
While lot sizes within the sample decreased between 1996 and 2002, lot sizes generally
2
remained around the generic size of 450-550m . The sample applications have little of the lot
size diversity, which is found in an established inner city neighbourhood. This may be due to
the type of applications assessed, that is, suburban residential areas.

6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to provide an investigation into the overall trends in residential
subdivision design and extent of compliance with the trial Liveable Neighbourhood policy
(LN). The investigations, while intensive and broad ranging, led to a simple conclusion. The
conclusion is that generally, Liveable Neighbourhoods has been generally adopted by the
industry. This is evident in the applications that have been being submitted to the WAPC.
Interestingly, applications that are more LN policy than DC policy in approach were received
as early as 1996. Each year the number of LN compliant applications increases, in relation to
DC policy applications, to the point that genuine DC policy applications have ceased. In
general, larger applications are more able and thus more likely to meet LN criteria than
smaller ones.
In some later years and on certain applications, LN policies are not strictly adhered to. Within
the scope of this study, it is not possible to categorically state why this is, but the cause may
be one or more of the following:
1. The structure planning and regional road system framework fails to support proper
neighbourhood clustering and integration of centres into residential areas;
2. Applications are part of a larger approved development that confines the ease of
changing development models;
3. The urban economics of the location fail to support the uses and range of residential
densities.
Configuration of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout is
increasingly in accordance with LN policy. Inclusion of centres and proper integration with
major roads and other neighbourhoods have not been fully addressed. It is not possible to
determine from the application plans the level of compliance with the more detailed aspects of
LN including Urban Water Management, Utilities and detailed design requirements including
requirements such as footpath networks.
The performance indicators confirm that the industry is increasingly adopting LN as its
standard. The standards of ability within the industry is, however, still very diverse.
LN provides a systematic approach to planning from the regional level down to the detailed
level. Individual applications remain difficult to assess due to a lack of detail on the context,
site conditions and design intent.
Even an experienced observer can benefit from performance indicators, as it is possible to
become familiar with one design technique and assume that only this technique will deliver
results. A variety of techniques can be accommodated within the LN requirements.
6.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

• Interconnected street network neighbourhoods were evident in the year the LN policy
was introduced.
• There is a trend toward design in accordance with LN policy. This is evident in the
pattern of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout.
• LN proposed neighbourhoods centred on mixed use commercial centres located at
key intersections. There are few examples of this in the applications assessed.
• Applications over the study period showed a trend towards a greater range of public
parkland located where it is visible and accessible. This represents a movement
towards LN policy.
• The introduction of the LN policy appeared to have a minimal impact on the range of
residential densities. Only a small increase in densities occurs in subdivision

applications. These tend to be related to a feature such as a park or commercial

centre.
• There was little evidence of main street neighbourhood centres development within
the sample. Where commercial centres are integrated within the residential area they
usually consist of one single block.
• It was difficult to deliver a comprehensive LN response in small applications. Smaller
applications do not tend to consist of an entire neighbourhood. Therefore it is difficult
to assess the application on elements often distributed throughout a neighbourhood.
• By 2000 most applications incorporated significant elements of LN policy. Even prior
to 2000 few applications strictly followed DC policy.
• Properly prepared structure plans appear to result in better designed and integrated
subdivision applications.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: 1996 - 2002 APPLICATION DATA

TABLE 1
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS OVER 50 LOTS BY LOCAL GOVT 1996 – 2002 INCL
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL

Albany 2 3 2 2 - - 2 11
Armadale 4 1 3 4 1 2 - 15
Augusta-Margaret River 2 2 - 2 - - - 6
Bayswater - 1 1 - - - - 2
Belmont 2 2 - - 1 - - 5
Broome 2 - 1 1 - - 1 5
Bunbury 2 5 2 3 - - 2 14
Busselton 6 5 3 1 - - 3 18
Canning 3 3 1 3 1 - 1 12
Capel 1 1 1 - - - 5 8
Carnarvon - - 1 - - - - 1
Chapman Valley - - 1 - - - 1
Chittering 1 - - 1 - - 1 3
Cockburn 7 6 6 6 8 1 4 38
Dandaragan 1 2 - - - - 2 5
Dardanup - - 3 2 - - 3 8
Denmark 2 - - - - - - 2
Fremantle - 1 - - - - - 1
Geraldton 1 - - - - - - 1
GinGin 2 - - 1 - - - 3
Gosnells 3 11 15 8 5 10 5 57
Greenough 4 3 4 1 - - - 12
Harvey 5 4 3 4 - - 2 18
Irwin 1 - - - - - - 1
Jerramungup - - 1 - - - - 1
Joondalup part 1 5 2 7 2 1 18
Wanneroo
Kalamunda 3 3 3 2 1 1 5 18
Kalgoorlie – Boulder 1 1 - 2 - 1 - 5
Kwinana - 1 1 2 2 2 1 9
Mandurah 5 10 8 4 - 10 15 52
Manjimup - 1 - - - - - 1
Melville - 1 - - 1 - 1 3
Mosman Park - - - - - - 1 1
Murray 3 - 4 1 - - - 8
Murray - 1 - - - - - 1
Nedlands 1 - 1 - 1 - - 3
Northam 2 - - 1 - - 1 4
Northampton - 2 1 - - - - 3
Perth - 1 - - - - - 1
Port Hedland - - 1 - - - - 1
Ravensthorpe - - - - - - 1 1
Rockingham 9 10 6 7 4 9 8 53
Roeburn - - 1 - - 1 - 2
Serpentine-Jarrahdale - 3 1 - 2 - 1 7
South Perth - 2 3 - - 1 - 6
Stirling 4 2 3 1 3 - 4 17
Swan 8 7 7 10 7 4 5 48
Toodyay - - - 2 - - - 2
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL
Victoria Park - - 1 - - - - 1
Wandering 1 - - - - - - 1
Wanneroo 16 19 16 15 11 17 21 115
York 1 - - - - - - 1
TOTAL 105 115 109 89 55 61 96 630
TABLE 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH MAJORITY OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Number Percentage

City of Wanneroo 115 18%
City of Gosnells 57 9%
City of Rockingham 56 9%
City of Mandurah 52 8%
City of Swan 48 7.5%
City of Cockburn 38 6%
57.5%
Shire of Busselton 18 2.8%

Shire of Kalamunda 18 2.8%
City of Joondalup 18 2.8%
Shire of Harvey 18 2.8%
City of Stirling 17 2.6%
71.3%
TABLE 3 - APPLICATIONS OVER 50 LOTS BY CONSULTANT 1996 – 2002 INCL
CONSULTANTS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL

Chappell & Lambert 10 15 19 14 8 10 21 97
Taylor Burrell 20 18 10 13 9 10 12 92
DPS 11 14 13 12 7 6 4 67
Roberts Day 5 3 4 4 9 3 9 37
BSD 4 5 7 5 2 9 2 34
Koltasz Smith 5 5 4 7 3 2 6 32
Mitchell Goff 4 9 3 6 - 2 2 26
Greg Rowe 2 5 7 3 - 4 2 23
Thompson McRobert 5 4 1 3 - - 4 17
Masterplan - 3 3 3 3 2 1 15
The Planning Group - 5 4 - 2 1 2 14
Gray and Lewis 1 1 4 - - 2 3 11
Urban Focus - 1 3 1 3 - 2 10
Turner 1 2 3 1 - 1 - 8
Chapman Glendinning 6 1 - - - - - 7
Rizzo & Assocs 3 - - 2 2 - - 7
Aclinovich 1 5 - - - - - 6
John Chapman 1 - - - - - 4 5
Whelans 1 2 2 - - - - 5
Benchmark Projects - - - - - - 3 3
Drescher & Assocs - - - 1 - - 2 3
Busselton Survey Office 3 - - - - - - 3
GHD 2 - 1 - - - - 3
Shrapnel 1 1 1 - - - - 3
Peter Webb 1 1 - - - - - 2
Landvision 2 - - - - - - 2
Other - 2 - 1 - - - 3
Other 16 15 20 14 7 9 17 98
TOTAL 105 115 109 89 55 61 96 630
APPENDIX 2 – INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT
This appendix contains the two indicator sets used as a basis for the development of the
project indicators.
TABLE 1 -
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS (AS PROVIDED
WITH TENDER)
Objective Indicator No. Measurement Measure Evaluation

Criteria
Element One: Cluster of 1.1 Neighbourhoo % of Development
COMMUNITY interconnected d coverage area covered by
DESIGN and walkable walkable
neighbourhood neighbourhoods
Increased s that form
clarity, towns
functionality High degree of 1.2 Connectivity Number of direct
and street connections to other
integration of connectivity neighbourhoods
the sub- between 1.3 Street network Is there a direct
regional urban neighbourhood hierarchy network of
structure s to support neighbourhood
public connector routes?
(Note: transport, and Yes/No
applicable a clear
mainly to hierarchical
structure plan street network
applications) Provision of 1.4 Mixed use Evidence of mixed-use
mixed use centres activity centres
activity supporting
centre(s) employment? Yes/no
1.5 Centres Are centres on
supported by neighbourhood
movement connectors or higher
network order streets?
Yes/No
Housing 1.6 Diversity of lot Yes/No
diversity and sizes State range, minimum
focussed and maximum
growth areas 1.7 Focussed Is density focussed
growth 400m around a centre,
800, around a railway
station. Yes/No
A network of 1.8 Distribution of Is parkland evenly
well distributed parkland distributed/accessible?
parks that are Yes/No
accessible and 1.9 Diversity of Yes/No
varied park size State range, smallest
and largest
1.10 Site Parks that retain
responsive natural/environmental
features
Yes/No
Criteria
Element Two: A connected 2.1 Connectivity Intersections/km2
MOVEMENT and efficient
NETWORK street network
that minimises
Enhanced through traffic
movement A clear street 2.2 Access street Reserve width of
network for all hierarchy that width majority of access
users of the balances streets
street function,
legibility, 2.3 Legibility Weighted
convenience, intersections/km2
traffic volume,
speed, public
safety and
amenity
Walkable, 2.4 Walkability % of residents
permeable (pedshed) within
network described distance of
most significant
community facility
(do one only):
-800m of rail station,
if no station the:
-400m of activity
centre, if no centre
then:
-400m of school, if
no school the:
-400m of largest park
2.5 Street block Maximum street
length block length
Street design to 2.6 Footpath/DUP Majority of streets
accommodate provision with at least one
and manage all footpath
users
Criteria
Element Three: Lot orientation 3.1 Lot orientation Majority of lots with
LOT LAYOUT to maximise appropriate solar
energy orientation
Increased conservation
mixture of Lot frontages 3.2 Ensuring Majority of lots ‘front-
compatible uses along public ‘fronting on’ on’ to public places,
places particularly streets,
parks and major
roads (DDIA’s and
DDIB’s)
Contexts for 3.3 Use of transit Yes/No
density as a context
for density
3.5 Use of Yes/No
parkland as a
context for
density
Appropriate use 3.6 Size of rear % of rear lane lots
of rear lanes lane lots, and under 12m frontage
the use of rear or with frontage to
lanes for parkland or a
access neighbourhood
management connector or higher
order road.
Element Four: Covered by 1.8 to 1.10
PUBLIC
PARKLAND
Varied and
accessible
parkland
Element Five: Combined storm 5.1 Evidence of Yes/No
URBAN WATER water multiple use of
MANAGEMENT management public open
with other space
Enhanced urban compatible land
water uses
management
Element Six: Covered by 2.2

UTILITIES
Space for utilities

TABLE 2 -
PRECINCT PLANNING INDICATORS
CITY OF JOONDALUP PRECINCT ACTION PLANNING PROGRAM INDICATORS
(TESTED AND USED IN THE PRECINCT CENTRES REVIEW REPORT – FEBRUARY
2001)
INDICATOR LIST
1. Commercial Viability
2. Neighbourhood Compatibility
3. Local Wealth Generation
4. Community Life
5. Personal Safety and Well being
6. Planning Opportunity
7. Commercial Exposure
8. Residential Activity and Investment Confidence
9. Main-Street Development Opportunity
10. Movement Network Improvements
11. Public Transport Access Improvement
12. Pedestrian Access Improvements
13. Centre Development Opportunity
14. Public Domain Development Opportunity
15. Environmental Health
VIABILITY INDICATORS
Precinct Planning in exiting areas becomes a high priority when certain trends arise placing
stress on the area. These trends, measured though indicators, suggest the need to
undertake Precinct Planning and indicate where effort should be focused on the basis of
threat or pressure.
Indicators
Commercial Viability • High vacancy levels at local

The viability of a Centre indicates its Centres.
relative attraction to users. Many factors • High levels of rental property or
can affect Commercial Viability and there vacancy in standard owner-
is a range of signs of poor performance. occupier (family) housing.
Deliberate use of the asset as a tax write
off and other actions can mask the true
viability of a Centre and even the most Neighbourhood Compatibility
successful Centres experience vacancies. Neighbourhood compatibility refers to the
On the whole the measures tend to be correlation between the demographic of
fairly reliable especially when the community and the role of the Centre.
accompanied by anecdotal evidence from While ultimately each neighbourhood
shopkeepers and letting agents. should support a diverse community there
are definite variations between different
Measures: neighbourhoods and suburbs. The
centres should include a range of
attractions tailored to the local community. • Home tenure percentage by
See section on graphs and tables. suburb.
• Level of unemployment or long
Measure: term under-employment.
• Mixed use for a variety of services
i.e. not a zone of one type of retail.
Community Life
Community breakdown due to increasing
Local Wealth Generation separation between employment, retail,
Personal Wealth reflects the relative family and cultural activities. Vibrant
comfort or stress experience in the Centres full of people enjoying passive or
community due to rate of growth in active exchange with other members of
property values. In an area where values the local community indicates successful
are not increasing or increasing at a community life. These Centres enable
slower pace than other areas, the individuals to pass the time, express their
community is losing the opportunity to own identify and develop a sense of
realise capital gains and having their belonging.
future housing choice restricted to similarly
poorly performing areas. Measures:
• Area of residential (permanent
High rentals of single houses also community presence) and other
indicates poor wealth generation as trends uses in the Centre.
are towards independence for those who
• Level of local employment (HBB
can afford it while the family continues to
etc bringing work and life
be a major source of owner occupier
together.)
tenure. Rental of houses to groups or
single parent families tends to indicate that
property values are falling behind suburbs
Personal Safety and Well being
with similar levels of access to amenities/
proximity to beach or City. Slum Lords Sense of security underlies community
may still be making money but the local development, and fear undermines the
community may not be generating their use of places and enjoyment of local
own wealth. community. It increases the sense of
isolation, frustration and anxiety. Crime
Areas in extreme decline tend to attract statistics are useful but must be
and reinforce long term unemployment. accompanied with indications of the
Unemployment itself tends to result in very perceptions of safety or safe environment
low disposable income and as a result audits (level of passive surveillance of
local businesses may suffer poor trade public areas form adjacent land uses).
and profit. Thus unemployment is a good
measure of Local Wealth Generation. Measure:
• Incidence of crime against
Measures: property or person in public space.
• Relative property value growth.
ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS:
Public investment should endeavour to ensure economic, social and environmental returns so
that it covers the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. Urban design strives to ensure
this but can only be successful where the existing urban environment allows for
improvements or public, community and private interests are prepared to contribute
considerable resources to retrofitting.
Indicators:
Planning Opportunity. succeed but that it needs to recognise the

Land use capability, bush plan and limitations of its catchment and tailor itself
heritage issues tend not to complicate the to that catchment, or create its own
regeneration of Centres in the City of demand by offering more mixed uses.
Joondalup. Instead however, the extent of
strata ownership means that even a well Location of commercial land in relation to
co-ordinated Strata group will have to a like order road i.e., Neighbourhood
negotiate many details to arrange for an Centre on Neighbourhood Connector.
enhancement of the Centre. While this is District Centre on District Distributor
an important, opportunity for gain only (actual level of visibility and access
tends to drive agreements when there is considered under Urban Design
significant opportunity for expansion. The Indicators).
allowable floor space allocated to a
Centre, but not ‘taken up’, is used as an Measure:
indicator accepting that some Centres will • Compatibility between location of
never take up their allowable floor space Centre and its commercial role.
due to poor location or site constraints. Assessed as a ratio of passing
traffic to retail order.
The Centres Strategy for the City of
Joondalup supports a wide range of uses
in centres meaning that most pedestrian Residential Activity and Investment
based activities can be approved under Confidence:
the Strategy even where allowable floor Community interest in enhancing the
space has be taken up. neighbourhood and willingness to see
beyond individual self-interest plays a
Measure: large part in the success of any process
• Permitted expansion of uses that seeks to manage change. This
against Metropolitan Centres indicator looks at the level of commitment
Policy and City of Joondalup there is to the area expressed through
Strategy. home improvements and the level of
desire to live in the area expressed
Commercial Exposure through sales to new occupants.
Commercial Exposure has in many ways
been deliberately avoided in the planning Measures:
of the city. Centres were supposed to • Residential real estate turnover.
survive on servicing their local catchment, • Home improvements (tends to
however passing traffic is essential to the indicate a belief that the area will
success of most Centres. Where this is remain attractive and capital
not provided, highly exposed Centres will outlays will be returned in lifestyle
draw local trade away from local Centres. or sales value).
Commercial Exposure can be somewhat

compensated for from time to time by the
development of local specialities and
niche marketing. In the longer term Main-Street Development Opportunity:
however, locational advantage rather than
Potential for enhanced level of commercial
competitive advantage will determine the
exposure and access to small, street front
success of Centres. This does not mean
style tenancies. Or, put simply, the
a Centre on a lower volume will not
opportunity to develop a movement instead use cars to drive to larger Centres.
economy rather than a marketing Attracting pedestrians is a key to the
economy. success of a Centre. It is also recognised
that the vibrancy created by people
Internalised shopping complexes provide moving around is another key factor that
a retail environment franchise business draws other people to a Centre. This is
underwritten by corporate mass assessed through the use of Ped Sheds
marketing. Small local businesses need (See Liveable Neighbourhoods
frontage and exposure at affordable rates. Community Design Code insert in
Poorly performing, predominantly Appendix)
internalised, local Centres, are generally
unredeemable. Measures:
• Pedestrian routes analysis (Ped
Measures: Shed).
• Ability to enhance visibility from • Number and extent of trees on
roads. important links.
• Linear length of commercial
exposure to street.
Centre Development Opportunity
Demolition and redevelopment on the
Movement Network Improvements. same site is unlikely. Regeneration
Managed traffic can be very advantageous usually requires phasing and often
to commercial development and make involves new development being
streets safer for pedestrians, including constructed to accommodate exiting
those moving to and from their cars. tenants from the old development prior to
Managed traffic creates the movement demolition. New retail and non-retail
economy that enables small Centres to development also renews interest and
compete. Poor traffic management brings in additional users. The opportunity
eliminates the convenience of local to accommodate new development on, or
Centres, taking away the edge they need adjacent to, the site is very important.
in order to survive against larger
competitors. Measure:
• Actual opportunity for street front
Measure: development and on-street
• Number of access points per parking given current layout.
household.
Public Domain Development

Public Transport Access Improvement. Opportunity.
Public transport makes Centres accessible The degree to which Council and the
to the 50% of people without a driver’s community can manage and reshape the
license. Public transport also enables critical areas of social and economic
many users to get to the Centre without exchange to suit contemporary demands.
placing excess demands on the Shared active space for all users
environment through expansive parking underpins the revitalisation strategy.
areas. Without the ability to enhancement these
spaces the role the City plays in the
Measure: revitalisation of these centres is
• Frequency of public transport significantly diminished.
service.
Measures:
• Ownership of community site in
Pedestrian Access Improvements
the Centre.
Opportunities to enhance the walkability of • Public ownership of the pavement
a neighbourhood by enhancing pedestrian (that is the community owns and
access to and around a Centre. If the controls the land on which people
local Centre is not in walking distance and walk to access the shops).
a pleasant place to visit customers will
dramatically reduce the likelihood of heart
Environmental Health disease and other conditions.
Within urban areas the quality of the
environment and the health of the Measures:
community are very closely related. A well • Tree cover in Centres especially
treed, accessible area that encourages car parks.
cycling and walking assists in reducing • Tree cover on private land
vehicle emissions, dust, urban heat and especially over development.
pollutant run-off. A community that cycles • Number of people cycling and
and walks is involved in activities that walking to work.
PARTNER/SHIPPING POTENTIAL INDICATORS
Partner/shipping Potential looks at a range of indicators of financial and value driven trends
that might support or subvert a managed regeneration of the City of Joondalup’s ageing and
sometimes failing Centres. Ultimately the success of such programs relies largely on the
credibility for the program and the formation of partnerships with community and investors.
Therefore these indicators are very sensitive to change in perception and program
management.
Indicators:
These indicatorsare best applied after the Centres have been categorised into levels of
priority as they are the most dynamic and erratic indicators.
Infrastructure Programs Development Projects

Infrastructure Projects and Programs Development Programs and Projects
(IPP’s) provide an indicator with various (DPP’s) like Infrastructure Projects and
applications. IPP’s can be a clear Programs indicate an area where
indication that and area has needs which disruption is impending. As with IPP’s this
must be met. It may also indicate that and may be an appropriate time to consider
area is being used as a service corridor for the broader benefits that the DPP’s could
infrastructure serving other areas. Either deliver, if this has not been considered.
way IPP’s indicate an area where Delay to budgeted works should be
disruption is impending. This may be an avoided where ever possible.
appropriate time to consider the broader
benefits possible from the IPP’s if this has
not as yet been considered. Delay to
budgeted works should be avoided
wherever possible.
Community Support
This can only be assessed through
workshops with the community to
determine the level of agreement over key
issues and the degree of support both for
managed change and willingness to
contribute to the process and development
of the outcomes.
APPENDIX 3 – ASSESSMENT INDICATORS
Measurability/
Performance Appropriateness/
Objective Indicator Measure Robustness Final Criteria In House Criteria
Element 1: Community
Design
O1 Facilitate an
environmentally 1. % of density
sustainable approach % walkable catchments increase around # of commercial
& protect natural & The degree of to local centres and centres to total lots served by rear
cultural assets sustainability public transport R=repeated EDR lots laneways
ratio of local
(local self- centres to number of EDR=External detail # of links to
containment) residences required EDR 2. type of centre commercial centre
# of assets lost due # of connections to
to the design/ # of Low- do not have 3. % of walkable a neighbourhood
assets retained in knowledge of local blocks (>620m connector per km --
the design context EDR perimeter) length of road
O2 Provide safe,
convenient &
attractive
neighbourhoods that
meet needs of Robustness, choice EDR; # of normal
community and attractiveness the range of sizes High R 4. walkability connections
5. evidence of
streets which are
% of orthogonal lot EDR; clearly defined # of not-normal
configurations High R by road widths connections
6. # of
the range of leisure commercial lots
activities, passive duly served by # of pedestrian
and active spaces Medium- detail on plans EDR rear laneways accessways
7. % of
convenient
ratio of employment Low- relevance in small linkages to # of vehicular
opportunities to # of sub with large centres commercial centre connections to
residences close EDR to centres external areas
Low- relevance in small
sub with large centres
ratio of community close/ degree to which 8. % of vehicular
facilities to developers are access points to
residences responsible EDR 100 lots # of lots
O3 Develop a 9. % of
coherent urban # of direct Low- do not have pedestrian access # of other
system of compact Connectivity and connections to other knowledge of local points to 100 connections to
neighbourhoods compactness neighbourhoods context EDR lots external areas
Medium- opportunity for 10. # of
ratio of density density increase in small connections to a
increase around sub and outer suburbs; be neighbourhood #of bands of lot
centres mindful of the norm 1 connector per km sizes
O4 Ensure a site Strengthening local 11. weighted

responsive approach character and Low- understanding of intersections per # of lots under
to development community local context EDR km 350m2
O5 Provide a managed Street network evidence of hierarchy 12. # of bands # lots with laneway
street network hierarchy through street widths Medium EDR lot size range access
# of lots which do
13. % of lots NOT facilitate
which may energy efficiency
# of landmarks; facilitate energy (ie are orientated
degree of directness efficiency (N-S 45 degrees of N-S
Legibility and sight lines Medium EDR or E-W) or E-W)
ratio of walkable
Permeability and blocks compared to 14. % of active # of non-orthogonal
Walkability total # blocks High 2 frontage on POS lot configurations
% of residences Medium- frequency of
accessible by which small sub include % of POS with
Encouragement of footpaths and cycle detail/ degree to which 15. % of lots active frontage-
walking and cycling routes developer is responsible EDR under 350m2 large
% of direct routes
which facilitate
through traffic 16. % of % of POS with
Minimise impact of compared to non- EDR; orthogonal lot active frontage-
through traffic direct routes Medium R configurations small
ratio of parkland
areas to number of
residences. Average 17. % of design
walking distance of which facilitates
O6 Provide well Degree of attractive dwellings to parks. alternative
distributed parks & and safe parks and Diversity of park Medium- requires more access and # of lots NOT
recreation areas recreation areas sizes detailed analysis EDR garaging within 400m of park
O7 Design takes into Consideration of

account of soil erosion, urban Low- understanding of 18. % of dwelling
environmental water management, local context/ within 400m of Are parks combined?
constraints bushfire risk environmental constraints EDR park CC, 0, PS, NA
19. % of parks
which are
combined with Are water
O8 Equitable Low- considered standard, community management features
provision of public Cost efficiency and minimums/conditions on facilities, combined with POS?
utilities effectiveness approval EDR schools Y, N, NA
20. % of UWM
features Ease of site
Where does density
Element 2: Movement increase? (C, P,
Network 21. Ease of site na)
O1 Provide levels of % of danger Medium- easy to track,

safety & convenience The degree of safety opportunities for all complicated to design # of blocks >620m
for street users and convenience street users well; possibility of bias EDR perimeter
# of shops visible
from major roads Medium EDR total # of blocks
evidence of streets
which are clearly
Clear physical defined by road
distinctions between widths (visual cues
O2 Provide a managed arterial routes and to distinguish High- easy to identify, # of road width
network of streets local streets hierarchy) maybe n/a for smaller sub 3 increments (>2m)
Medium- isolated cases
where road does not
The degree of # of commercial lots support frontage
O3 Support frontage frontage development duly served by rear development; difficult to type of centre for
development along streets laneways identify commercial lots 4 PEDSHED
O4 Provide
convenient linkages The amount of # of convenient Medium- easy to identify,
within movement convenient linkages linkages compared to important objective, # walkable
network to activity centre activity centre order difficult to interpret 5 catchment squares
ratio of vehicular
Access points in and access points to # of potential
out of the area total lots Medium 6 catchment squares
ratio of pedestrian
access points to weighted
total lots Medium 7 intersections -4
To provide for
O5 Provide a efficiency in travel # of walkable Low- difficult to predict
movement network time by providing catchments to PT PT routes, too detailed
which is efficient access to PT routes too investigate EDR T
# of connections to a
neighbourhood
connector per km Medium 8 C
O6 Ensure efficient The degree of ratio of increase in Low- n/a to most cases;
& convenient rail accessibility to density within 800m important to those near
public transport rail of rail stations rail stations 9 DE
O7 Provide a % of dwellings within Low- difficult to predict
comprehensive bus Accessible bus 400m of possible bus bus routes, too detailed
route routes route too investigate EDR
O8 Provide a safe,
convenient & legible Quality bike Low- few provide this
bike movement network, on and off # of on and off bike detail, responsibility of
network road paths developer? EDR
O9 Provide a safe,
convenient & legible Provision of quality
movement system for movement systems for any provision for Low- requires detailed
people disabilities disable persons disabled access information EDR
O10 Provide a safe, Provision of safe
convenient & legible and legible notable opportunity Low- few provide this
movement system for pedestrian movement for pedestrian detail, responsibility of
pedestrians system network on footpath developer? 10
O11 Design street
networks to optimise # of activity centres
the walkable access Optimise walkable not accessible by
to destinations access walking Low- bias, DNA R
O12 Design major Optimise pedestrian # of crossing for

roads as integrator crossing of arterial pedestrians or
arterials routes intersections per km Low- relevance 11
O13 Design & detail
new developments to # of activity centres
promote & support not accessible by
walking Support walking walking Low- bias, DNA R
O14 Provide Provision of # of parks which
pedestrian paths pedestrian paths in provide pedestrian Low- few provide this
through parks parks paths detail EDR
O15 Provide
attractive
streetscapes which The degree of
reinforce function amenity and quality of Low- detail maybe not
of street attractiveness streetscape design provided EDR
O16 Provide range of street
sufficient width of The performance of widths compared to
road & verge the street network area of site Low R
O17 Provide street # of occurrences of
geometry which is dangerous street
safe & appropriate designs compared to
to street function Good street geometry number of streets Medium- perceptions, bias EDR
O18 Accommodate on- ratio of on-street
street parking where Opportunities for bays to possible
required on-street parking provisions Low- bias, speculative EDR
O19 Provide a safe,
distinct & pleasant The degree of
environment for safety, amenity and Low- value judgment,
residents & users identity a comment? broad objective EDR
O20 Construct roads
at a minimum cost to Low- standard practice,
community DNA EDR
O21 Provide road
edge that is
appropriate,
structurally Low- standard practice,
adequate & detailed DNA EDR
O22 Accommodate
public utility
services & drainage Provision of utility # of drainage basins,
systems and drainage systems pumping stations Low- DNA EDR
Element 3: Lot
Layout
O1 Provide a range The range of lot
of residential lots sizes the range of sizes High 12
O2 Provide lots
which are orientated % of lots which may
& dimensioned to facilitate energy
suit energy Opportunities for efficiency (ie are High- difficulty in
efficient housing energy efficiency orientated N-S or E-W identifying and scoring 13
% of block sizes
which may facilitate High- difficulty in
energy efficiency identifying and scoring 14
O3 Provide lots with
area & dimensions
that protect % of lots which are Medium- may not have
environmental Sympathetic design designed to protect knowledge of local
features of lot sizes natural features context EDR
O4 Arrange lots to Provision of lots % of lots which front
front streets, major which front streets major streets and
streets & parks and parks parkland High 15
O5 Facilitate
development which
uses land & Facilitation of
infrastructure efficiency for
efficiently housing designs Low- DNA EDR
O6 Provide for
smaller lots & lots
capable of Provision of choice
supporting higher and smaller lot
density development sizes % of lots under 350m2 High 16
O7 Provide lots in
appropriate Medium- confusion for
locations which are Provision of lots # of lots directly small sub which have no
suited to business near business surrounding business need for business
development opportunities opportunities opportunities EDR
O8 Guide building
layout to enable
efficient use of % of orthogonal lot
site Efficient access configurations High 17
% of design which Medium- lack of built
O9 Provide lots facilitates form controls at
which facilitate Alternatives to alternative access structure plan stage;
safe & efficient garage and car and garaging than only app to lots >12m
vehicle access dominated streets front street street frontage 18
# of mixed use lots
provided to act as a
O10 Provide lots buffer from major Medium- diff to determine
which facilitate roads, rails, what lots are to be used
noise management Noise management industry for EDR
Element 4: Public
Parkland
O1 Ensure that
public open space is
of appropriate % of dwelling within Medium- use a general
quality & quantity Distribution 400m of park circle template 19
Approx % provided; #
Amount of parks Medium EDR
Medium- distinction
Potential function % of park and sizes sometimes not made 20
O2 Facilitate the % of parks which are
provision of land combining with
for community Provision of community facilities,
facilities with land combined POS with schools, drainage
ceded for POS community facilities basins Medium 21
O3 Protect &
preserve wetlands, # of parks included
water courses & Protection of in design with Medium- lack of knowledge
foreshores natural features natural features of local context EDR
Element 5: Urban
Water Management
O1 Prevent flood
damage to built & Protection from # of multiple use POS
natural environment flood damage corridors Medium EDR
# of systems which
O2 Contain nuisance Provide for nuisance contain nuisance
flows flows flows Low- DNA EDR
O3 Provide an urban
water management
system for Quality stormwater quality of stormwater
stormwater system system Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O4 Provide for urban
water management
through multiple use Provision of # of multiple use
systems multiple use systems systems Low-DNA EDR
O5 Ensure that
stormwater does not
degrade receiving Protection of ground quality of stormwater
waters and surface water system Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O6 Maximise
opportunities for ratio of on-site
local on-site Opportunities for storage facilities to
storage on-site storage residences Low- DNA 22
O7 Avoid adverse
alteration to water
balance & Protect groundwater changes in natural
groundwater depth depth ground levels Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O8 Minimise
disturbance caused
by draining or
filling of streams & Protection of degree of alteration Low- knowledge of local
wetlands natural systems to natural systems context and systems EDR
O9 Provide urban
water management
that can be
economically Low- detail of project
maintained vs. plan EDR
Element 6: Utilities
O1 Ensure that
residential areas
are adequately Services in a Best practice in
serviced sustainable manner service provision Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O2 Maximise
opportunities for
shared trenching &
reduces constraints
within street Degree of common
reserves trenching # of common trenches Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O3 Provide a
sewerage system Quality of sewerage quality of sewerage
which is adequate system system Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O4 Provide adequate,
reliable, safe,
efficient and
potable supply of
water Quality water supply quality water supply Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O5 Provide public
lighting to ensure
safety Quality lighting quality lighting Low- expertise and DNA EDR
O6 Locate utilities
such that all
streets, except
laneways can have Provision of street # of streets which
street trees. trees propose street trees Medium- DNA EDR
APPENDIX 4 – ASSESSMENT RAW DATA
Old
Careniup Meadow McKail Brookfield Cell 7 Byford Treendale Harbour Rise Egerton Broadwater Banksia Grove, Canning Vale
LOCATION Swamp Springs Marleston Hill Structure Plan Estate Forrestfield Structure Plan Farm Hillarys (ODP73) Farm Anstey Park Carramar ODP
853/2/25/1P47
FILE NO. 801-2-20-2P 801/6/13/8 801/6/2/8 801/5/4/4 801/6/3/3 808/2/24/4P7 801-2-29-2 801/6/12/4 801/2/30/21 801/2/21/5 853/6/6/21P11 1/2/28/3P11V 801-2-30-6PV7 8
1a. Type of Centre (TC, DC,

P) P NC NI-NTS TC NI-NTS TC RSP RSP C P NI-NTS C DC RSP
1b. Walkable catchment (%) 60 15 NI-NTS 45 NI-NTS 40 RSP RSP 40 45 NI-NTS 50 55 RSP
2. # of links to commercial
centre NA 1 2 6 4 3 4 10 6 4 3 3 4 4
4. % of walkable blocks 89 NI NI-NTS 100 100 83 RSP NI 84 95 83 94 95 RSP
4. %of blocks which may
facilitate energy efficiency 100 17 29 100 63 93 RSP 45 0 79 33 48 92 RSP
5. # of road width increments NA NI 4 NI 3 NI NI 4 2 3 NA 4 2 4

6. Movement networks (PT,
C, P, V, NA) NI NI NI C, V NI P, PT, C, V NI C NA NI C P,C NA C,P
7. Where does density
increase? (TC, P, NA) NA Na NI TC TC, P P TC DC NA TC, POS NA P NI C
CC, PS, DS,
LC, LI, MU,
8. Landuses (CC, Civ, PS, PS, HS, RETIRE, CC, PA,
HS, Com, MU) NA Comm, CC Com TC, PS TC, CC LC, HS PS, MUTC TAVERN MU CC, TC, PS LC COMM NA MU, PS, HS
9. % of blocks within 400m of
park 100 66 100 100 100 67 RSP 100 100 100 NI 100 100 RSP
9b. Are parks combined?
(PS, CC, NA) NA NA DC PS NA HS NA NA N N N PS PS, HS, O, NC PS
10. Are UWM features
combined with POS? (Y/N) Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y
11. Ease of site 1-5 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 2 5 4 4 5 4 4
Old
Careniup Meadow McKail Brookfield Cell 7 Byford Treendale Harbour Rise Egerton Broadwater Banksia Grove, Canning Vale
LOCATION Swamp Springs Marleston Hill Structure Plan Estate Forrestfield Structure Plan Farm Hillarys (ODP73) Farm Anstey Park Carramar ODP
853/2/25/1P47
FILE NO. 801-2-20-2P 801/6/13/8 801/6/2/8 801/5/4/4 801/6/3/3 808/2/24/4P7 801-2-29-2 801/6/12/4 801/2/30/21 801/2/21/5 853/6/6/21P11 1/2/28/3P11V 801-2-30-6PV7 8
1. Did SP show clusters of

walkable catchments? NI N N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y
2. Did SP show existing and
proposed commercial? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3. Are natural features
retained? NI NI Y NI NI Y Y Y N Y Y NI NI Y
4. Are proposed street blocks
shown? Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N
5. Is a street heirarchy
shown? N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y
6. Are movement networks
shown? N N N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y
7. Is density defined? N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y
8. Are land uses defined? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y
9. Is parkland identified? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
10. Are urban water
management features
identified? Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y
Cell 6 Panorama Success Jindalee Lot The
Maddeley Gdns Cell 11 Lakes Atwell South 12 Anchorage
801-2-30- 001-2-28-
12P7V 801/2/23/5P1V 801-2-23-13 801-2-23-12 801/2/30/4P21 3P14V
RSP TC LC TC NI-NTS P
RSP 40 30 60 NI-NTS 30
3 5 2 5 4 NA
RSP 100 95 100 NI-NTS 94
RSP 73 76 80 30 91
2 4 2 4 3 3
NA NA NA NA NA C,P
DC,LC TC LC TC, P P NA
PS, RETIRE, PS, MU, CV,

COMM,PS, NS TC NA COM MU NA
RSP 100 100 100 100 100
PS, CC PS N PS NA N
N Y Y Y NI
4 5 2 5 5 5
Cell 6 Panorama Success Jindalee Lot The

Maddeley Gdns Cell 11 Lakes Atwell South 12 Anchorage
801-2-30- 001-2-28-
12P7V 801/2/23/5P1V 801-2-23-13 801-2-23-12 801/2/30/4P21 3P14V
N N Y Y N N
Y Y Y Y Y N
N NI NI Y NI NI
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
N N N N N Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y NI Y Y NI
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y NI N
Woodlake
Village, Lot 16, Ranford Road, Wanbro
Gnangara Connolly Connolly Livingston Bussell Old Coast Rd Ackland Sound
Road, Drive, Drive, Warton Road, estate, Canning Wellard Road, Clarkson Ave, Highway, & Dampier Street, Mt Avenue, Port St John Road, Talbot Road, Clydebank
LOCATION Ellenbrook Clarkson Currambine Canning Vale Vale Leda Neerabup Margaret River Ave Erskine Tarcoola Kennedy Wattle Grove Stratton Avenue
FILE NO. 99718 99890 100391 100435 100667 100978 101256 101269 101381 102436 101540 101631 101643 101758
1. evidence of density increase

around centres P N/A O N/A N/A O N/A N/A O P N/A N/A N/A N/A
2. Walkability-type of centre P C C N/A P P C N/A N/A N/A C N/A C O
% of walkable blocks (<620m) 91 58 89 38 20 73 31 40 50 57 50 0 0 60
walkable catchment (%) 34 39 67 NA 35 59 29 NA NA NA 20 NA 5 33
3. evidence of streets which are
clearly defined by road widths
(visual cues to distinguish
hierarchy) 3 2 2 2 0 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 0 2
4. # of commercial lots duly served
by rear laneways N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5. # of convenient linkages
compared to activity centre order N/A 8 4 N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6. ratio of vehicular access points
to total lots (x:100) 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 5 2 1 4 3 1 2
7. ratio of pedestrian access points
to total lots (x:100) 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 1 4 4 1 1 9 2
8. # of connections to a
neighbourhood connector per km 12 7 9 9 9 28 7 N/A N/A 6 3 N/A 1 9
2 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 2
6 8 6 7 3 5 7 2 1 1 4
0 1 2 2 2 1 0 4 0 0 0
9. ratio of increase in density within
800m of rail stations
10. notable opportunity for
pedestrian network on footpath
11. Weighted intersections per km 6.9 9.3 9.2 1 -6.4 -6.6 -7.2 -2.5 -2.1 -3.6 2 0.3 -2.1 2.8
12. the range of sizes 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 2
13. % of lots which may facilitate
energy efficiency (ie are orientated
N-S or E-W 54 74 85 3 20 85 80 93 72 25 17 100 27 89
14. % of block sizes which may
facilitate energy efficiency
15. % of lots which front major
streets and parkland 70 45 50 N/A 30 50 65 N/A 0 60 100 5 3 30
16. % of lots under 350m2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. % of orthogonal lot
configurations 100 94 93 90 70 92 76 88 85 73 75 89 78 77
18. % of design which facilitates
alternative access and garaging
than front street 26 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19. % of dwelling within 400m of
park 100 100 100 100 100 98 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 75
20. % of park and sizes
21. % of parks which are
combining with community
facilities, schools N/A PS PS N/A N/A NA PS N/A N N/A N N N N/A
22. Are urban water management

features combined with POS N/A Y Y Y N/A N N N/A Y N/A Y N/A N/A Y
23. Ease of site 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4
Mardo Jandakot Baltimore Hammond Wunong, Erindale Walanna Clydesdale & South
Avenue, Road, Parade, Road, South Clyde Avenue, Road, Seville Drive, Drive, Ennis Avenue, Mills Road, Lagoon Drive, Bertram Road, McGonnell Western Anstey Rd & Sir David
Australind Jandakot Merriwa Success Armadale Baldivis Ballcatta Armadale Talbot Rd Karawona Warnbro Gosnells Yanchep Casuarina Road Highway Mandurah Rd Brand Drv
101794 101972 102125 102359 102475 102700 102818 101220 102984 103227 103792 103864 104394 105404 105619 106074 106274 107171
N/A P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A O O O N/A C N/A N/A P P N/A O C P P C O C
33 36 29 73 43 64 60 0 76 57 81 56 0 88 83 58 86 71
NA 23 21 44 NA 45 NA NA 32 46 NA 45 50 53 47 41 54 34
1 3 1 4 1 1 0 0 4 0 3 3 2 1 4 2 3 2
N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0
N/A 2 N/A 5 N/A 3 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 4 11 N/A 4 N/A 3
4 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 2 3
4 3 1 3 13 0 4 0 2 5 6 2 2 1 1 0 2 0
6 N/A 8 5 8 6 N/A N/A 8 N/A 12 15 5 16 N/A 9 17 20

3 1 1 2 2 1 6 10 2 1 1 2 5
2 6 4 4 4 6 2 1 2 13 7 8 4
0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
-2.4 -11.9 0.7 1.2 -4 10.8 0.5 -2.6 -6.7 -2.1 0.4 -4.3 -5 25.5 1.4 10.4 4.2 1.4
2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 2
94 77 83 85 8 60 86 100 94 51 60 76 37 55 82 82 51 44
N/A 75 N/A 90 75 95 60 N/A 60 0 N/A 40 15 95 50 90 N/A 50

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 92 89 98 82 94 80 100 91 70 92 77 66 87 79 96 81 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 100
N/A N N/A N N N N N/A PS N/A N/A N/A CC PS N/A CC N/A N
N/A Y N/A Y Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y Y N Y N/A N

4 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Streeve,
Campbell &
Bussell Waterhall Rd, Chappel & Autumn Cr, Wungong Amherst
Highway, North Beach South Kinross Drv, Bastram Rd, Rawley Rd, Johnson Road, Connolly Dr Travers Drive, Forest Lakes, Talbot Road, Road, South Roads,
Old Coast Rd Quinns Rd Glen Huon Blv Dallyellup Rd, Gwellup Guildford Kinross Jandakot Armadale Bertram Ridgewood Australind Thornlie Jane Brook Armadale Canning Vale
107475 108381 108764 109010 109385 109386 109979 110259 111026 111657 109947 110518 110573 112666 113028 113244
Ends of
O N/A N/A P P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Blocks N/A
C O C P O O C O O P O N/A N/A O POS NA
83 78 83 84 86 43 67 50 25 58 38 0 50 50 89 56
25 49 51 60 65 63 63 57 27 38 31 NA NA 31 NA NA
3 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 2
0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 3 1 4 2 1 3 3 8 2 1 2 3 2 1 5
0 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 5 1
151 3 16 16 17 N/A 16 10 4 11 6 N/A N/A 9 N/A 23

10 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 5
13 2 5 17 5 8 4 4 12 6 3 4
2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8.7 2 -2 25.9 1.5 -5.9 -1.1 -3.1 -1.2 1.7 1 -0.6 -0.9 3 -5.8 2
1 3 1 4 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1
89 71 78 97 97 54 28 76 69 85 69 88 15 100 69 10
40 N/A 70 50 80 N/A 50 N/A 0 100 70 N/A N/A 38 50 100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 96 94 100 99 91 85 95 73 97 87 93 78 86 89 89
0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 N/A 100 82 100 N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 100
SC N/A N N/A N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A
Y N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N N/A
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 3
Ranford &
Burgundy Nicholson Dundebar Karinga/Frema Clyde Ave & Northport Seville Drive & Driver San Sebastian San Sebastian Langford Ave,
Karrinyup Lane, The Roads, Marmion Ave, Road, Beeliar Drive, ntle Roads, San Baldivis Road, Boulevard, Bertram Road, Poad St, Road/Kingsway Boulevard, Boulevard, Wingrove Road
Road, Stirling Vines Canning Vale Butler Wanneroo Yangebup Remo/Madora Baldivis Port Bouvard Bertram Armadale , Darch Port Kennedy Port Kennedy Langford
113695 114175 114580 114669 114870 115265 115965 116136 116808 116810 117601 118037 118041 118042 116981
N/A O P CP N/A N/A P N/A P C N/A N/A P P N/A

O P N/A C N/A P P P N/A P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 83 54 100 67 100 80 67 100 100 93 90 83 100 100
29 NA NA 64 NA 43 42 42 NA 53 NA NA NA NA NA
4 2 0 4 3 1 4 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 0
N/A N/A 0 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A 1 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 1 1 1 3 2 1 7 4 1 3 4 3 3 4
1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 4 3 2 2 6 3 1
16 N/A 0 14 13 8 15 19 12 18 8 9 12 11 22
1 2 0 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 6 4
16 0 30 6 13 12 7 16 15 3 6 4 1 4
2 0 5 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2
12.3 5.3 -3.8 27.2 5.3 12.8 7.3 5.9 12.2 20.3 4.6 5.1 4.6 2.6 7.3
1 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 1
85 52 45 93 100 94 73 51 27 73 0 96 69 26 0
100 100 100 88 N/A 80 80 100 95 90 63 N/A 95 100 70

0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
85 80 83 93 97 98 91 85 99 89 95 96 100 99 98
13 34 0 19 0 0 7 0 11 0 0 0 42 36 0
100 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 100
N/a N/A N/A CC N/A N/A 0 N/A O PS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A Y N N Y N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Stephenson
Ave Nedlands, The McCabe Templeton Safety Bay Norton Hughes Jones Adelaide Eastuary
St Johns Wood Glenhuon Bartram Road, Promenade, Bussell Hwy, Street, Greenshank Drive, Road, Promenade, St/Fraser Road Ranford Road, East Road, St/Guildford, Street, High Road,
Estate Blvd, Eaton Success Ellenbrook Broaadwater Mosman Park Dr, Roebuck Hopetown Rockingham Dalyellup Canning Vale Southern River Pearsall Stirling Wycombe Dawesville
115833 118210 118281 118518 118579 118653 118705 118909 119226 119336 119351 119565 119649 120115 120160 120220
N/A N/A P O N/A O N/A N/A P N/A N/A P N/A R N/A N/A
N/A C P P P N/A N/A N/A N/A O P N/A N/A P P N/A
0 70 76 100 83 25 100 83 93 78 95 67 82 100 86 67
NA 37 NA NA 47 NA NA NA NA 45 NA NA NA NA NA NA
0 3 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 0
N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 2 1 5 5 8 6 8 2 2 7 3 6 8 5 2
4 0 1 3 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 9
N/A 15 8 15 14 N/A N/A N/A 12 N/A 13 N/A 13 8 16 N/A

3 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 6
5 6 6 10 5 9 8 4 0
1 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 3
-2.2 -2.2 0.4 7.9 5.9 -0.9 2.7 3.2 0.7 8.9 8.5 4.4 9.8 4.8 2.4 -0.8
2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2
-2 76 100 100 100 0 100 46 93 52 100 29 100 100 13 14
70 70 25 100 70 N/A N/A 48 100 N/A 100 N/A 80 N/A 80 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
94 68 98 93 96 100 100 69 82 91 95 91 100 90 80 97
0 8 7 17 0 36 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 19 0 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 100 100 100 100
N/A N N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A PS N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A Y N/A Y N/A N Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A
3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3
Fremantle
Allwood Road,
Russel Road, Johnson Road, Russell Road, Wyatt & Elliott Parade, Meadow
Banjup Bertram Maddeley Road, Hocking Bayonet Head Springs
120089 120488 120977 120984 121092 121131
P P N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A P O N/A P P/O
100 87 78 86 70 83
NA NA 34 NA 54 46
2 3 3 0 3 1
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 1 3 5 6 1
1 0 0 3 2 0
13 9 18 5 9 13
3 2 2 2 1 3
4 5 9 3 12 4
1 1 0 0 0 0
11 9.8 2.6 5.9 6.9 2.1

2 2 2 1 2 2
100 88 100 93 87 73
75 95 N/A N/A 60 90
0 0 0 0 0 0
98 97 99 95 84 91
0 0 0 0 0 0
100 100 N/A 100 100 100
N/A N/A N/A N N/A N
N/A N/A N/A N Y N/A

4 4 4 4 4 2
APPENDIX 5 – APPLICATION DETAILS OF ASSESSED PLANS
1996
LG LOCATION/DESCRIPTION FILE NO. APP NO. LANDOWNER APPLN LN OR DC CONSULTANT
TYPE LOTS DATE
Swan City Woodlake Village, Gnangara Road, 99718 1 128 Homeswest 05.01.96 Hybrid Roberts Day Group
Ellenbrook
Wanneroo City Lot 16, Connolly Drive, Clarkson 99890 1 773 Gold Estates 01.02.96 DC Turner Master Planners
Wanneroo City Connolly Drive Currambine 100391 1 170 Bank of WA 2.4.96 DC Mitchell Goff
Gosnells City Warton Road, Canning Vale 100435 1 181 Taylor Woodrow 28.02.96 Taylor Burrell
Canning City Ranford Road, Livingston Estate, 100667 1 251 Thoro Securities Pty Ltd & 01.05.96 DC Whelans Survey & Mapping
Canning Vale Boldar Pty Ltd Group
Kwinana Town Wellard Road, Leda 100978 1 105 WA Land Authority 05.06.96 Chappell & Lambert
Wanneroo City Clarkson Ave, Neerabup 101256 1 488 Yatala Nominees Pty Ltd 15.07.96 Chapman Glendinning
Augusta-Margaret Bussell Highway, Margaret River 101269 1 135 JJ Archibald & Co 12.07.96 Koltasz Smith
River Shire
Mandurah City Old Coast Rd & Dampier Ave 101381 1 100 Mellpoll 24.7.96 DC BSD Consultants
Erskine
Greenough Shire Ackland Street Mt Tarcoola 102436 1 147 Panorama Home 22.11.96 DC GHD
Rockingham City Wanbro Sound Avenue, Port 101540 1 145 Peet & Co P/L 05.08.96 Fielman Planning Consultant
Kennedy
Kalamunda Shire St John Road, Wattle Grove 101631 1 103 Selec P/L 14.08.96 BSD Consultants
Swan City Talbot Road, Stratton 101643 1 150 Homeswest 21.08.96 Chapman Glendinning
Busselton Shire Clydebank Avenue 101758 1 262 JW Bell 03.09.96 Busselton Survey Office
Harvey Shire Mardo Avenue, Australind 101794 1 71 Marist Brothers Community Inc 28.08.96 Thompson McRobert Pty Ltd
Cockburn City Jandakot Road, Jandakot 101972 1 466 Lakes Hotel P/L, Laurene 03.10.96 Chappell & Lambert
Development P/L & others
Wanneroo City Baltimore Parade, Merriwa 102125 1 288 Smith Corporation Pty Ltd 08.10.96 Taylor Burrell
Cockburn City Hammond Road, Success 102359 1 265 Gold Estates 09.10.96 Development Planning
Strategies
Armadale City Wungong, South Armadale 102475 1 125 Homeswest 14.11.96 Taylor Burrell
Rockingham City Clyde Avenue, Baldivis 102700 1 352 Taylor Woodrow 19.12.96 Taylor Burrell
Stirling City Erindale Road, Balcatta 102818 1 74 Marchese et al 16.12.96 Rizzo and Assocs
Armadale City Seville Drive Armadale 101220 1 69 Pacesetter Homes 80.07.96 Koltasz Smith
1997
TYPE LOTS DATE
Swan City Talbot Road, Jane Brook 102984 1 490 Landrow Developments 20.01.97 Chappell & Lambert
South Perth City Walanna Drive, Karawona 103227 1 206 Homeswest 27.02.97 Gray & Lewis
Rockingham City Ennis Avenue, Warnbro 103792 1 203 Analed P/L 06.05.97 BSD Consultants
Gosnells City Mills Road, Gosnells 103864 1 256 RJ Peteus P/L 09.05.97 Brook & Marsh
Wanneroo City Lagoon Drive, Yanchep 104394 1 189 Yanchep Ocean Front 02.07.97 Richard Pawluk & Associates
Development Trust
Kwinana Town Bertram Road, Casuarina 105404 1 432 Kincross Enterprises Guinea 03.10.97 Taylor Burrell
Estates P/L
Albany City Clydesdale & McGonnell Road 105619 1 112 E Brook 22.10.97 Harley, Hedderwick & Webber
Serpentine-Jarrahdale South Western Highway, Byford 106074 1 407 Bradwell P/L 23.12.97 Mitchell Goff & Associates
Shire
1998
TYPE LOTS DATE
Rockingham City Anstey Rd & Mandurah Rd, Secret 106274 1 173 Secret Harbour P/L / Davidson 21.01.98 Chappell & Lambert
Harbour P/L
Carnarvon Shire Sir David Brand Drv, Carnarvon 107171 1 146 LandCorp 15.04.98 Taylor Burrell
Harvey Shire Old Coast Rd, North Australind 107475 1 452 Kintyre Holdings & Others 26.05.98 Kintyre Holdings P/L & Others
Wanneroo City Quinns Rd, Mindarie Keys Mindarie 108381 1 173 Bellridge Nominees P/L & 01.09.98 Chappell & Lambert
others
Dardanup Shire Glen Huon Blv, Eaton 108764 1 414 Eaton Developments P/L 07.10.98 Gray & Lewis
Capel Shire Bussell Highway, Dallyellup 109010 1 402 Homewest 13.11.98 Thompson, McRobert &
Stirling City North Beach Rd, Gwellup 109385 1 137 Australand Development Planning
23.12.98 Strategies
Swan City Waterhall Rd, South Guildford 109386 1 167 Citi Fidelity Nom Co P/L 23.12.98 BSD Consultants
1999
TYPE LOTS DATE
Joondalup City Kinross Drv, Kinross 109979 1 106 Burns Management P/L 02.03.99 Taylor Burrell
Cockburn City Thomsons Lake estate, Bartram 110259 1 182 Gold Estates of Australia Ltd 01.04.99 Development Planning
Armadale City Rd J dRd,
Rawley k Armadale
t 111026 1 52 Peet Adios Syndicate P/L 15.06.99 St t Burrell
Taylor i
Kwinana Town Johnson Road, Bertram 111657 1 408 Navarac P/L 11.08.99 Koltasz Smith
Wanneroo City Connolly Dr Ridgewood 109947 1 226 Town and Country 2.3.99 DPS
Harvey Shire Chappel & Travers Dr, Australind 110518 1 132 Carcoola Nominees 03.05.99 Thomson Consultative
Surveyors
Gosnells City Autumn Cr, Forest Lakes, Thornlie 110573 1 153 LandCorp 6.5.99 Mitchell Goff
Swan City Talbot Road, Jane Brook 112666 1 276 Landrow Developments 25.11.99 Chappell Lambert
2000
TYPE LOTS DATE
Armadale City Wungong Road, South Armadale 113028 1 272 Ministry of Housing 13.01.00 Taylor Burrell
Gosnells City Streeve, Campbell & Amherst 113244 1 133 Taylor Woodrow 07.02.00 Development Planning
Roads, Canning Vale Strategies
Stirling City Karrinyup Road, Stirling 113695 1 264 Menzies Court Holdings/Kevin 30.03.00 Roberts Day Group
Pollock & Associates
Swan City Burgundy Lane, The Vines 114175 1 125 Mesatech P/L 01.06.00 Chappell & Lambert
Canning City Ranford & Nicholson Roads, 114580 1 236 Towlshire Ltd 14.07.00 Acalovich & Co
Canning Vale
Wanneroo City Marmion Ave Butler 114669 1 874 Ministry for Housing 21.07.00 Chappell and Lambert
Wanneroo City Dundebar Road, Wanneroo 114870 1 185 Carnegie Park (No 3) P/L 23.08.00 Rizzo Associates P/L
Cockburn City Beeliar Drive, Yangebup 115265 1 448 Fiducia Homes P/L & various 17.10.00 Urban Focus
2001
TYPE LOTS DATE
Mandurah City Karinga/Fremantle Roads, San 115965 1 276 Nancy Grace / Phillip Richard 07.02.01 Chappell & Lambert
Remo/Madora
Rockingham City Clyde Ave & Baldivis Road, 116136 1 144 Shephard Holdings P/L / 22.02.01 BSD Consultants
Baldivis Okeland P/L
Mandurah City Northport Boulevard, Port Bouvard 116808 1 368 Wannunup Dev Nom P/L 05.06.01 Greg Rowe & Associates
Kwinana Town Bertram Road, Bertram 116810 1 357 Guinea Estates P/L 25.05.01 Taylor Burrell
Armadale City Seville Drive & Poad St, Armadale 117601 1 195 Hajex P/L 28.9.01 Mitchell Goff & Associates
Wanneroo City Driver Road/Kingsway, Darch 118037 1 153 Stockland WA (Constructors) 8.10.01 Masterplan Consultants WA
P/L
Rockingham City San Sebastian Boulevard, Port 118041/2 1 72 Peet & Co 23.11.01 Masterplan Consultants WA
Kennedy
Gosnells City Langford Ave, Wingrove Road 116981 1 104 Ministry of Housing 29.6.01 Gray & Lewis
Langford
Nedlands City Stephenson Ave Nedlands, St 1
Johns Wood Estate 115833 56 Landcorp 7.12.00 Hybrid Taylor Burrell
2002
TYPE LOTS DATE
Dardanup Shire Glenhuon Blvd, Eaton 118210 1 205 Parkridge Group P/L 02.01.02 DC Gray & Lewis
Cockburn City Success Lakes Estate, Bartram 118281 1 300 Gold Estates 14.01.02 DC DPS
Road, Success
Swan City The Promenade, Ellenbrook 118518 1 120 DHW 18.02.02 hybrid Roberts Day Group
Busselton Shire Bussell Hwy, Broadwater 118579 1 247 Craigie, Carine Nom others 15.02.02 DC Chappell & Lambert
Mosman Park City McCabe Street, Mosman Park 118653 1 61 LandCorp 08.03.02 Landvision
Broome Shire Greenshank Dr, Roebuck 118705 1 52 Roebuck Estates, 08.03.02 DC Shrapnel planning
Ravensthorpe Shire Templeton Dr, Hopetoun 118909 1 74 LandCorp 08.04.02 hybrid Taylor Burrell
Rockingham City Safety Bay Road, Rockingham 119226 1 212 Westgate Properties & others 17.05.02 DC DPS
Capel Shire Norton Promenade, Dalyellup 119336 1 227 Dalyellup Beach 06.06.02 DC Thompson McRobert Edgeloe
Gosnells City Hughes st/Fraser rd Canning Vale 119351 1 262 Lakeview Rise 29.05.02 DC Prestige Developments
Gosnells City Ranford road, Southern River 119565 1 156 Clipper Corp 27.06.02 DC Chappell & Lambert
Wanneroo City East rd, Pearsall 119649 1 131 Five Star Assett 06.07.02 DC Roberts Day
Stirling City Jones st/Grindleford rd, Stirling 120115 1 72 WR Carpenter & DOLA 30.08.02 DC WR Carpenter properties
Kalamunda Shire Adelaide st, High Wycombe 120160 1 103 EH Thompson & others 02.09.02 DC Allen & Assocs
Mandurah City Estuary rd, Dawesville 120220 1 65 Balwyn Dawesville P/L 10.09.02 DC BSD
Cockburn City Russell road, Banjup 120089 1 176 Australand 27.08.02 LN Taylor Burrell
Kwinana Town Johnson rd, Bertram 120488 1 324 Navarac P/L 01.10.02 DC Koltasz Smith
Wanneroo City Russell Rd, Maddeley 120977 1 208 Patnal P/L 19.11.02 DC Chappell & Lambert
Wanneroo City Wyatt & Elliott roads, Hocking 120984 1 99 Monte 2.12.02 DC Benchmark Properties
Albany City Allwood Pde, Bayonet Head 121092 1 127 Peet Bayonet head 24.12.02 DC Koltasz Smith
Mandurah City Fremantle rd, Meadow Springs 121131 1 222 Analed P/L 20.12.02 DC Chappell & Lambert
LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW: STRUCTURE PLANS 1996-2002
LOCATION LOCAL GOVT FILE NO. HA LANDOWNER DATE TYPE CONSULTANT
Careniup Swamp City of Stirling 801/2/20/2P 14 Various Mar-96 DC Koltasz Smith
Meadow Springs City of Mandurah 801/6/13/8 371 Town & Country May-96 DC Feilman/DPS
Marleston Hill City of Bunbury 801/6/2/8 33 Landcorp Sep-96 hybrid Taylor Burell
McKail Structure Plan City of Albany 801/5/4/4 226 Various Nov-96 DC Ayton Taylor Burrell
Brookfield Estate Shire Augusta - MR 801/6/3/3/ 42 Eastland PL May-97 DC Chappell/Lambert&BSO
Cell 7 Forrestfield Shire of Kalamunda 808/2/24/4P7 74 various Aug-98 Hybrid Gray and Lewis
Byford Structure plan Shire of Serp-Jarrah 801/2/29/2 1363 Various Aug-98 LN Taylor Burrell
Treendale Farm Shire of Harvey 801/6/12/4 297 Coote,Bevan etal Feb-99 LN TME
Harbour Rise Hillarys City of Joondalup 801/2/30/21 46 Estates Dev Co Apr-99 Hybrid Taylor Burrell
Egerton (ODP73) Shire of Swan 801/2/21/5 176 Mulitplex Jan-00 LN Mitchell Goff/PUMP
Old Broadwater Farm Shire of Busselton 853/6/6/21P11 78 Hair and Co Aug-00 DC Roberts Day
Anstey Park City of Rockingham 1/2/28/3P11V 120 various Jan-01 Hybrid Urban Focus
Banksia Grove, Carramar City of Wanneroo 801/2/30/6PV7 600 Landstart Mar-01 Hybrid Roberts Day
Canning Vale ODP City of Gosnells 853/2/25/1P478 469 Various Jun-01 Hybrid City of Gosnells
Cell 6 Maddeley City of Wanneroo 801/2/30/12P7V 400 Various Aug-01 DC BSD/City of Wanneroo
Panorama Gdns, Cell 11 City of Cockburn 801/2/23/5P1V 153 Homeswest Aug-01 Hybrid Chappell Lambert
Success Lakes City of Cockburn 801/2/23/13 77 Gold Estates &o Aug-01 DC DPS
Atwell South City of Cockburn 801/2/23/12 115 LandCorp Feb-02 LN Roberts Day
Jindalee Lot 12 City of Wanneroo 801/2/30/4P21 49 Colin Heath Feb-02 LN Chappell Lambert
The Anchorage City of Rockingham 001/2/28/3P14V 115 Allied Land Co Jun-02 Hybrid Roberts Day
APPENDIX 6 – METROPOLITAN APPLICATIONS MAP
Liveable Neighbourhoods Review
N
0 2 4 6 8 10
GEOCENTRIC DATUM OF AUSTRALIA
Kilometres
Produced by Project Mapping Section,
Planning Information - Mapping and Spatial,
Department for Planning and Infrastructure,
Two Rocks on behalf of the Western Australian Planning
Commission, Perth, W. A. September 2003
ntw-map5\ \plan_imp\policy\urban_design\
Yanchep live_neigh_review\sub_sites_96_02_a4.dgn
104394 LEGEND
1997
Eglinton Reserved Lands
Pinjar Parks and Recreation

114669
2000 102125
2002 1996
109947 Bullsbrook Railway & Port Installation
108381 1999
1998 99890
1996 2001
Mindarie State Forest
109979 101256
1999 1996
Currambine
100391 114870 Civic and Cultural
1996 2000
114175 Gidgegannup
Wanneroo 118518 2000 Upper Swan
120984 2002 Waterways
Mullaloo 2002 119649 2000
2002 99718
1996 Baskerville Wooroloo
120977 118037 Primary Regional Roads
Hillarys 2002 2001
1999 2001
Indian Herne Hill
Marmion Ballajura 102984 112666 Other Regional Roads
Chidlow
West Swan 1997 1999 Parkerville
102818
109385
1998 1996 Beechboro 101643
120115 1996 Public Purposes
1996 2002 Morley Midland The Lakes
Scarborough 113695
2000
109386
1998 Helena Valley Zones
Mundaring
North Perth 120160
2002
City Beach High Wycombe SawyersUrban
Valley
115833 Perth
2001
Victoria Park 1998 Kalamunda
Nedlands
Cottesloe
101631 Urban Deferred
103227 1996
1997
Bickley
Ocean 118653
Cannington
Central City Area
2002 Riverton
116981 Pickering Brook
2001
119351
Fremantle 2002 103864 Canning Mills Industrial & Special Industrial
100667 2001110573
1996 1997
113244 1999
100453 Rural
101927 2000 1996
Coogee 1996 114580 Kelmscott
115265 2000 119565
2002 101220 Roleystone
2000 102359 1996
2001 1996 110259 117601 Rural - Water Protection
2001
118281 1999
2002 2002 Armadale
120089 2001 113028 Private Recreation
2002 111026 2000
1999 Wungong Illawarra
Naval Base
Garden Island Byford NB: MRS detail is a simplification of Zones and
Anketell Reservations as amended to July 2003
Kwinana Beach 1998
105404 106074
1997 1997 Karrakup
111657
100978 1999
1996 Subdivision - Ref. No. 106074
Rockingham Leda
Mundijong Year 1997
2002
Safety Bay
119226 Mardella Structure Plan - Year 1998
2002
102700 Baldivis Jarrahdale
101540 1996 116136 Local Government
1996 103792 2001 Boundary
1997
118041/2
2001 Metropolitan Region
Port Kennedy Hopeland Serpentine
Scheme Boundary
2001
106274
1998
Keysbrook
Singleton
Task 1 - Design Review : Structure Plan &

Subdivision Sites, Metro, 1996 - 2002

Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW

SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AND

The conclusions of the study are:

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 2

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 3

Key Areas of Non-Compliance

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 4

2.2 PLAN SELECTION METHOD

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 5

2.3 SELECTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. All LN objectives were listed;

2.3.1 Structure Plan Assessment Indicators

TABLE 1 INDICATORS – STRUCTURE PLAN (QUALITY OF INFORMATION)

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 6

TABLE 2 – INDICATORS – STRUCTURE PLAN PERFORMANCE

2.3.2 Subdivision Application Assessment Indicators

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 7

TABLE 3 INDICATORS – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 8

2.4 ASSESSMENT ISSUES

TABLE 4 - STRUCTURE PLAN ASSESSMENT ISSUES

TABLE 5 - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT ISSUES

2.5 STATISTICAL LIMITATIONS

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 9

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 10

3.1 Structure Plans

Type of Centre around which density is clustered.

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 11

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 12

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Number of links to commercial centres

NUMBER OF LINKS TO COMMERCIAL CENTRES

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 13

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Percentage of walkable blocks.

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 14

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Percentage of blocks that may facilitate energy efficiency.

% OF BLOCKS WHICH MAY FACILITATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 15

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Number of road width increments

EVIDENCE OF STREET HIERARCY

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 16

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

EVIDENCE OF MOVEMENT NETWORKS

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 17

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Where does density increase

WHERE DOES DENSITY INCREASE

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 18

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

LAND USES EVIDENT

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 19

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Number of blocks within 400m of park

% OF BLOCKS WITHIN 400M OF POS

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 20

STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Are parks combined?

% OF POS WHICH IS COMBINED

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 21