Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

8/14/2019 Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

1/100

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEWTASK 1

SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ANDSTRUCTURE PLANSASSESSMENT

Report Prepared byThe Planning Group WA

forThe Department of Planning and Infrastructure

on behalf of theWestern Australian Planning Commission


2/100

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW TASK 1

THE PLANNING GROUP WA PTY LTD 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study is to provide an investigation into the residential subdivision designtrends and the level of compliance with the Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) policy that hasbeen on trial since 1997. Compliance with the LN policy is not mandatory and residentialsubdivision 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 andInfrastructure (DPI) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Itinvolves the analysis of 85 subdivision plans and 20 structure plans received between theyears of 1996 and 2002. The purpose of the study is to identify design trends in structureplans and subdivision applications and to examine the extent to which the principles of thetrial policy are being adopted. This work will assist the WAPC in its LN policy review, due tocommence in 2003/04.

The DPI provided sample structure plans and subdivision applications for the review. Thesecovered a range of geographic locations and were submitted to the WAPC between 1996 and2002 inclusive. The sample applications are representative of all the applications over 50 lotssubmitted to DPI between 1996 and 2002. The methodology used qualitative andquantitative approaches to assess the applications.

The conclusions of the study are:

1. Interconnected street network neighbourhoods were evident in the year the LN policywas introduced.

2. There is a trend toward design in accordance with LN policy. This is evident in thepattern of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout.

3. LN proposed neighbourhoods centred on mixed use commercial centres located at keyintersections. There are few examples of this in the applications assessed.

4. Applications over the study period showed a trend towards a greater range of publicparkland located where it is visible and accessible. This represents a movement towardsLN policy.

5. The introduction of the LN policy appeared to have a minimal impact on the range ofresidential densities. Only a small increase in densities occurs in subdivisionapplications. 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 thesample. Where commercial centres are integrated within the residential area, theyusually consist of one single block.

7. It was difficult to deliver a comprehensive LN response in small applications (less than100 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 to2000 few applications strictly followed DC policy.

9. Properly prepared structure plans appear to result in better designed and integratedsubdivision applications.

It is important to note that the structure plans and subdivisions were not detailed enough todetermine their level of compliance with aspects such as Urban Water Management, Utilitiesand other detail design requirements. Furthermore, it has not been possible to assess theapplications in relation to contours and views as this information was rarely presented.


3/100



CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................4

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 52.2 PLAN SELECTION METHOD.......................................................................................52.3 SELECTION OF INDICATORS ....................................................................................6

2.3.1 Structure Plan Assessment Indicators..................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Subdivision Application Assessment Indicators ......................................................7

2.4 ASSESSMENT ISSUES ...............................................................................................92.5 STATISTICAL LIMITATIONS........................................................................................ 9

3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS...................................................................................................10

4 KEY CHANGES ...................................................................................................................46

4.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................46

4.2 DESIGN TRENDS.......................................................................................................464.2.1 Neighbourhood and Town Structure......................................................................464.2.2 Integrated Development .........................................................................................464.2.3 Local Identity ...........................................................................................................46

4.2.4 Street And Lot Layout .............................................................................................474.2.5 Mix Of Uses And Employment ...............................................................................474.2.6 Public Parkland .......................................................................................................47

4.2.7 Schools.................................................................................................................... 47

4.3 OVERALL TRENDS ....................................................................................................47

5 KEY AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE ...............................................................................49

5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................495.2 DESIGN .......................................................................................................................49

5.2.1 Clustering of neighbourhoods ................................................................................495.2.2 Interconnectivity to other neighbourhoods.............................................................505.2.3 Inclusion of local centres ........................................................................................505.2.4 Configuration of centres.......................................................................................... 50

5.2.5 Road hierarchy........................................................................................................505.2.6 Density variations.................................................................................................... 50

6 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................51

6.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................516.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS................................................................................51

7 APPENDICES

7.1 APPENDIX 1 1996 2002 APPLICATION DATA

7.2 APPENDIX 2 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT7.3 APPENDIX 3 ASSESSMENT INDICATORS7.4 APPENDIX 4 ASSESSMENT RAW DATA7.5 APPENDIX 5 APPLICATION DETAILS OF ASSESSED PLANS7.6 APPENDIX 6 METROPOLITAN APPLICATIONS MAP


4/100



1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide an investigation into the residential subdivision designtrends 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 residentialsubdivision and structure plan applications were able to be submitted under the alternateDevelopment Control (DC) Policy.

Scope

This study was undertaken by The Planning Group for the Department for Planning andInfrastructure (DPI) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Itinvolves the analysis of 85 subdivision plans and 20 structure plans received between theyears of 1996 and 2002. The objective of the study is to identify design changes in structureplans and subdivisions and to examine the extent to which the principles of the WAPCs trialLN policy are being adopted.

Methodology

The DPI provided sample structure plans and subdivision applications for the review. Thesecovered a range of geographic locations and were submitted to the WAPC between 1996 and2002 inclusive. The sample applications are representative of all applications over 50 lotssubmitted to DPI between 1996 and 2002. The methodology used qualitative andquantitative 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 quantitativeapproaches. The Application Data, Indicator Development and Assessment Indicators are

tabled in Appendix 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The applications are available for inspection atthe 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 AssessmentResults. The Raw Data is provided in Appendix 4.

Key Changes

Chapter 4 Key Changes provides a detailed outline of trends in subdivision design based onthe 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 becomplied 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 notinvestigated in this study.

Conclusions

The study provides Chapter 6 Conclusions, which identifies trends, the extent to which theindustry has adopted LN and the influence of structure plans on subdivision applications.


5/100



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 alsooutlines the study limitations that have arisen due to the poor quality of some applicationplans.

2.2 PLAN SELECTION METHOD

The subdivisions and structure plans reviewed in Task 1 were selected by DPI officers. TheWAPC resolved that these should cover the years 1996 to 2002 inclusive and be applicationsin excess of 50 lots. It was also desirable that the applications chosen should be statisticallyrepresentative, of both local governments (LG) and consulting firms (designers).

20 subdivisions were chosen from the year for 1996 and 2002, and 8 for each interveningyear 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 to105.

The selection was made on the following principles:

in general, larger (than 100 lot) applications were chosen as they enabled moreperformance indicators to be measured;

the total number of applications, by LG was determined for each year. The chosennumber of applications was proportional to the activity within LG areas;

the number of subdivision applications by planning consultant was determined for eachyear, and the chosen applications responded to the consultants doing the majority ofwork. Examples from smaller firms were also included to ensure that a range of designresponses were assessed; and

regional applications were included in most years. However, in some years (eg 2000 and2001) there were few applications over 50 lots outside the metropolitan area.

In total the sample was selected from some 630 subdivision applications over 50 lotssubmitted to the DPI between 1996 and 2002. All of these proposed subdivisions in excess of50 were lots. The total number of subdivision applications received by the WAPC in thisperiod by LG, are shown on Table 1- Appendix 1. Six local governments contributed over55% of these applications, as shown on Table 2- Appendix 1. The expectations of these LGscould have had a major impact on design trends.

Table 3- Appendix 1 shows the number of applications by year and by consultant. Arepresentative cross section of structure plans was more difficult to identify, as they aregenerally 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 exampleswas obtained. It was not possible to obtain five examples from 2002. The structure plansselected for the review are shown in Table 5- Appendix 1.

The location of selected sites is shown in Appendix 6.


6/100



2.3 SELECTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

To ensure that the structure plans and subdivisions were assessed under LN, all LNobjectives were listed and constantly referred to during the formulation of the performanceindicators and the assessments themselves. The brief included a set of preliminary indicatorsthat 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 areoutlined below. These steps are to be read in conjunction with the full indicator matrix inAppendix 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 isbased on context and identity, requiring a more place-making approach to the use and formof the design.

Structure plans are intended to provide guidance for more detailed plans, thus the informationthey exhibit is critical. An assessment was undertaken to determine the extent to whichstructure plans provide the information identified within Element 1. This is an indication forthe usefulness of this information as a guide to future development. The criteria used todetermine 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 reasonfor duplication of objectives in other elements. However, there are several key designobjectives that should be addressed in structure plans. A summary of the performanceindicators was developed to assess the conformance of structure plans. These are outlinedin 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?


7/100



TABLE 2 INDICATORS STRUCTURE PLAN PERFORMANCEThe 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 ofLN)

2 Number of links to commercial centre

Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and theease 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 andpermeability.

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) indicatinglegibility 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 areaof 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, localjobs 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.

SupplementaryMeasurement Ease of site

Assists in the evaluation of whether site issues affect the ability of a proponent to complywith LN.

2.3.2 Subdivision Application Assessment Indicators

The subdivision application assessment indicators were based upon Elements 2 to 7 of LNpolicy. These elements focus more on site-specific objectives and requirements. Overalldesign responses to the objectives of Movement, Lot Layout and Public Parkland are usuallyevident 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 andwhich are not. The study does not attempt to rank or score the overall quality of subdivisiondesign. Subsequently the assessment indicators were not ranked or weighted.


8/100



TABLE 3 INDICATORS SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONNote 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 ofnetworks 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-streetintersection 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 ofaccess.

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 dividedfrom 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 thenumber 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 housingvariety.

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. Largeand small parks are measured and averaged.

15. Percentage of lots under 350m2

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 androbustness (redevelop-ability).

17. Percentage of lots with lane access.

Explanation Lanes provide increased flexibility of design and ease of retro-fitting. Robustness is a LNrequirement.

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 NumbersExplanation Indication of the number of blocks making it possible to derive percentage of lots achievingrequirements. May help to explain lack of performance on a number of indicators that may bedifficult 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 hasfailed to provide required response.


9/100



2.4 ASSESSMENT ISSUES

The LN policy requires additional information to be provided with structure plans andsubdivision applications, in the form of a supporting report or on the plans in the form ofannotations. 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 howthey were addressed.

TABLE 4 - STRUCTURE PLAN ASSESSMENT ISSUESISSUE 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 toplans but concluded it was inappropriate to assess the structure plan onthe 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 medianin 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 existingfeatures. Could not assess existing context and relationship to theproposal.

No Context to surrounding areasshown.

Could not assess performance relating to location. Could not assessthose indicators requiring external detail.

Identification of major open space. Major open spaces are not always identified as open space.

TABLE 5 - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT ISSUESISSUE SOLUTION

No North Arrow. Check with cover sheet plan provided by DPI.

No Scale. Lengths calculated by reducing or enlarging a standard scale rule tocreate 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 fromanalysis 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 PathsShown.

Footpaths and Dual Use Paths rarely shown.

Location and Size of Public OpenSpace.

New POS lots are shown but the nature, rights of access and dimensionsof existing spaces and reserves adjacent to the development are rarelynoted. To avoid inconsistency between plans where the spaces areexplained and those where they are not, the assessment excluded anyspace outside the study area from assessment.

Location and proposed urban watermanagement features.

Little or no information is provided therefore these could not be assessed.

2.5 STATISTICAL LIMITATIONS

The total number of plans was sufficient to achieve an accurate representation of applicationsover the assessment period of 7 years. However, some individual years were onlyrepresented by 8 applications, which is not adequate to confidently assume an accurate testsample. The practical implications of this limitation can be seen through the sensitivity ofresults when separated by year. The sample timeframe of 1996 to 2002 provides only asnapshot of a longer evolution of design trends and ultimately whether applications areadopting 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 inpractice has tainted the results in some way and can be seen clearly in the analysis.


10/100



3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS


11/100



3.1 Structure Plans

Type of Centre around which density is clustered.

TYPE OF CENTRE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

POS Neighbourhood

Centre

Town Centre District Centre None Proposed

type of centre

percentage%

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 notchronological. 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 thestructure plan stage. As guiding density is one of the roles of a structure plan, thisindicates that the role is not properly performed.


12/100



STRUCTURE PLANS CONTINUED

Walkability

WALKABILITY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

structure plan 1996-2002

percenta

ge%

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, highernumber 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 overtime.


13/100




Number of links to commercial centres

NUMBER OF LINKS TO COMMERCIAL CENTRES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


numberoflinks

Explanation:

Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the ease

of access.

Sample:


Commentary:

The graph shows that there has not been a significant increase in the number of links tocommercial centres. The average number of links achieved is 3 to 4. Three links indicatesthat the centre is on the periphery of the developments. The structure plan with 10 linksincluded higher order centres.


14/100




Percentage of walkable blocks.

% OF WALKABLE BLOCKS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


percentage%

Explanation:

Number of street blocks


15/100




Percentage of blocks that may facilitate energy efficiency.

% OF BLOCKS WHICH MAY FACILITATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17


percentage%

Explanation:

Measures lot orientation appropriateness using the solar diagram on pg 54 of LN

Sample:


Commentary:

The results are erratic but suggest a trend toward improved solar orientation. This issupported by the qualitative assessment.


16/100




Number of road width increments

EVIDENCE OF STREET HIERARCY

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


numberofroadwidthincrements

Explanation:

Measurement of different road width types indicating legibility of networks and a managedstreet 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 classifiedas two increments.

Sample:


Commentary:

Structure Plans include District Distributor Integrator As and District Distributor Integrator Bsdown to Access Streets and therefore include up to 4 increments easily. The hierarchywithin the neighbourhood is important but not required at the structure plan stage.


17/100




Movement networks

EVIDENCE OF MOVEMENT NETWORKS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pedestrian Cycle Public Transport

type of movement network

percenta

ge%

Explanation:

Is a clear legible street hierarchy identified?

Sample:

The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregatedinto an average, for the evidence of different movement networks.

Commentary:

The results show that structure plans provide very little indication of the intended movementnetworks. Based on the information provided in the plan alone, as a guide to integrateddevelopment, they fall short. Qualitatively the level of information has improved over timebut not dramatically.


18/100




Where does density increase

WHERE DOES DENSITY INCREASE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

POS Town Centre Local Centre District Centre No Increase

location of density increase

numberof

projects

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:

The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregatedinto an average for a summary of where density does increase.

Commentary:

The graph shows that many structure plans provided no indication of density increase. Sixindicated density around public open space (POS). Few structure plans indicated densityaround centres. This is partly due to the lack of these centres within the structure plan, as isthe case with district centres. However, more structure plans included increased densityaround town centres than local centres.


19/100




Land Uses

LAND USES EVIDENT

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Primary School High School CommunityCentre

Town Centre Commercial Mixed Use District Centre

land uses defined

numberofinstances

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:

The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregatedinto 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 structureplans mostly lacked an integration of other uses.


20/100




Number of blocks within 400m of park

% OF BLOCKS WITHIN 400M OF POS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


percentage%

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 resultcould be determined.

Commentary:

It is evident that all structure plans, with the exception of the first few years, include anappropriate distribution and accessibility of Public Open Space.


21/100




Are parks combined?

% OF POS WHICH IS COMBINED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Centre Primary School High School Community Centre Other

percentage%

Explanation:

Parks, when combined with other uses, create a stronger node in the neighbourhood

Sample:

The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregatedinto an average percentage for the evidence of % of the number of public open spaces thatare combined with other uses.

Commentary:

The graph shows that public open space is combined with primary schools more than anyother use. It was observed that the size of these public open spaces were smaller asparkland was more distributed across the neighbourhood. Combining POS with other uses isstill very limited.


22/100




Are Urban Water Management features combined with POS?

% OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES COMBINED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No No Information

percentage

%

Explanation:

LN permits and supports the use of parks as water management area.

Sample:

The sample includes all structure plans for which a result could be determined, aggregatedinto a percentage of structure plans that showed Urban Water Management UWM featurescombined with Public Open Space.

Commentary:

Structure Plans show water management features combined with public open space in 60% ofcases. This may be higher as UWM may be combined but not shown on the plan. The exactnature 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 inconflict with good water management techniques.


23/100




Site Ease

SITE EASE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

ease category

percentage%

Explanation:

Assists in the evaluation of whether site issues affect the ability of a proponent to comply withLN.

Sample:

The graph shows the percentage of total structure plans that have fallen into a particularcategory 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 alesser impact.

2 equals a site that had constraints but these were configured in such a way as to have onlyminimal 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 determinewhether these represent an actual constraint on implementing LN. A barrier in one designoption may be a desirable feature under another. It is evident that there are few sites wherean idealised LN model can be rolled out according to a pure LN clustered neighbourhoodmodel.


24/100



SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS

Percentage of lot density increase around centres.

WHERE DOES DENSITY INCREASE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentageofp

rojects%

No increase

ParkCentre

Other

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 basisfor the study period

Commentary:

There is a trend towards locating density where it has a relationship to a feature in theneighbourhood. Density is quite often related to public open space.


25/100



SUBDIVISION PLANS CONTINUED

Total number of lots proposed.

TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

numberoflots

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. Largersubdivisions may have several hundred lots, yet there are some years where the totalnumber of lots is only around 2000 lots. These equate to an average of 200 lots. At thisscale, it is difficult to assess the development against the performance indicators and difficultto create a neighbourhood. This accounts for the low scores in 1999 across a range of PIsas indicated in the following graphs. The increased size and number of applications in 1996and 2002 also influences the outcomes adding to the level of performance.


26/100


27/100



SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS CONTINUED

Percentage of walkable blocks (>620m perimeter)

% of WALKABLE BLOCKS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

pe

rcentage%

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 ona 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 thestudy period. This is perhaps the single strongest indicator of the success of LN in increasingthe walkability of suburbs.


28/100




Walkability (walkable catchment or pedshed)

WALKABILITY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

Explanation:

Centre specific study of walkability based on catchment modelling (detailed on page 83 ofLN)

Sample:

The graph indicates the averaged percentage walkability in subdivisions applications on aper year basis for the study period

Commentary:

The average walkability (35-45%) is not as high as it should be (60%). The drop inwalkability in 1999 is associated with smaller subdivisions


29/100


30/100




Number of commercial lots served by rear laneways

NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL CENTRES PROPOSED COMPAREDTO NUMBER OF CENTRES ACCESSED BY REAR LANEWAYS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

numberof

centres

# Centres

# Served bylaneways

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 bya laneway.

Commentary:

LN has not resulted in a greater number of integrated centres and there are very few centresserved by lanes. The results are an indication that neighbourhood and town centres basedon main street principles may not being occurring.


31/100




Percentage of convenient linkages to commercial centres

NUMBER OF CONVENIENT LINKS TO COMMERCIAL CENTRES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

numberoflinks

Explanation:

Number of roads converging on a centre highlighting the centrality of the centre and the easeof access.

Sample:

The graph shows the average number of links to centres in subdivision applications on a peryear basis for the study period.

Commentary:

The number of convenient links to commercial centres has dropped. As the number ofcentres have dropped this result is to be expected. Observation suggests that individualapplications are now better connected to centres when they do occur. In 2001, noapplications were submitted with centres.


32/100




Percentage of vehicular access points per 100 lots

NUMBER OF VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS TO EXTERNALAREAS

0

1

2

3

4

5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

num

beroflinks

Explanation:

Indication of the extent to which the neighbourhood forms part of the urban fabric or is dividedfrom it as an estate on the side of a highway.

Sample:

The graph shows the average number of access points to external areas in subdivisionapplications 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 aremore likely to be able to evolve into mixed use neighbourhoods over time. This is asignificant change and a very clear movement from DC policy that encourages cell planning,to LN which encourages integration.


33/100




Number of pedestrian network links per 100 lots

NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS

0

1

2

3

4

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

numberofpedestrianaccesspoints

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 ofblocks 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 movementtowards a street based pedestrian movement system. This is a significant move towards LNpolicy.


34/100




Number of connections to a neighbourhood connector per kilometre

NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS TO A NEIGHBOURHOODCONNECTOR PER KM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

number

ofconnections

Explanation:

Identifies whether the neighbourhood is well connected to the neighbourhood connector.

Sample:

The graph shows the averaged number of connections to neighbourhood connectors insubdivision 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 istowards a greater number of connections to neighbourhood connectors. This highlights amovement towards a more interconnected local street system. This is a significant movetowards LN policy.


35/100




Weighted intersections per kilometre

PERMEABILITY BY WEIGHTED INTERSECTIONS

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

weightedi

ntersectionvalue

Explanation:

Calculates the number of connected road ends (4 ways and T junctions) in relation to thenumber of dead ends and disorientating road kinks. Identifies legibility and permeability.

Sample:

The graph shows the sum value of intersection and road weightings in subdivisionapplications on a per year basis for the study period, averaged for that year. Four ways andthree ways are scored positively whilst dead-ends and elbowed or roads that curve by 90degrees or more are weighted negatively.

Commentary:

Apart from a drop in 1999 (resulting from smaller number of lot subdivisions) the trend istowards a more direct, well connected and road system. This is a significant move towardsLN policy but it should be noted that in recent years the trend has not been as strong.


36/100




Number of bands in the range of lot size

RANGE OF LOT SIZES BY BAND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percenta

geoftotalprojects

1 band

2 bands

3 bands

4 bands

5 bands

Explanation:

Identifies number of significantly different lot size increments as an indicator of likely housingvariety.

Sample:

The graph shows the number of subdivisions with no through to 5 bands range of lot sizeover each year for the study period. The split is shown as a percentage of the whole numberof subdivisions received that year.

Commentary:

There has been a steady decline in mono density subdivisions accompanied by an increasein ranges of lot sizes up to five increments in scope. This outcome would assist in creating amore diverse range of housing choice supporting LN. Other indicators show that the numberof higher density lots is often very limited.


37/100




Percentage of lots that may facilitate energy efficiency (N-S or E-W)

NUMBER OF LOTS WHICH MAY FACILITATE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

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 insubdivisions applications on a per year basis for the study period

Commentary:

There has not been an overall increase in solar orientated lots. Many recent applicationsinclude fan shaped grids and integrated street systems that are not orientated north-southeast-west. The potential to align lots for solar orientation has not been taken, sometimes asa result of over all site orientation.


38/100




Percentage of residential frontage onto POS

% OF POS WITH ACTIVE FRONTAGE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

Explanation:

Identifies the percentage of POS perimeter fronted by lots that will contain active use. Largeand small parks are measured and averaged.

Sample:

The graph shows the averaged percentage of the extent to which public open space isfronted by residential or mixed use development in subdivisions applications on a per yearbasis 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, allowinggreater frontage. There has also been a shift towards providing a greater number of smallerparks dispersed through the residential areas. This approach is a moment towards LN.


39/100




Percentage of lots under 350m2

% OF LOTS UNDER 350M2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

Explanation:

Measures the number of small lots in the neighbourhood.

Sample:

The graph shows the averaged percentage of lots under 350 m

2

in subdivisions applicationson a per year basis for the study period

Commentary:

There are very few lots fewer than 350m2. 350m

2blocks are more likely to result in two

storey and town centre style residential. The lack of these blocks indicates that the shifttowards LN is not resulting in the development of traditional medium density, mixed usestyle neighbourhoods.


40/100


41/100




Percentage of lots with lane access.

% OF DESIGN WITH ALTERNATIVE ACCESS AND GARAGING

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

Explanation:

Lanes provide increased flexibility of design and ease of retro-fitting. Robustness is a LNrequirement.

Sample:

The graph shows the averaged percentage of lots with alternative access in subdivisionsapplications on a per year basis for the study period

Commentary:

The use of laneways did not become common, despite their inclusion in developments asearly as 1996. Lanes are now included but limited. As lanes add robustness and flexibilityto lots, this indicator can be seen as a moderate movement towards more diverse and mixeduse neighbourhoods as supported by LN.


42/100




Percentage of dwellings within 400m of park

% OF DWELLING WITHIN 400M OF POS

98 9997

100 100 100 100

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

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 openspace in subdivisions applications on a per year basis for the study period.

Commentary:The percentage of dwellings within 400m

2of public open space has not increased

dramatically, but it can be seen that while 400m is actually a large distance earlyapplications 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 notbe difficult to achieve.


43/100


44/100




Urban water management features

% OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES COMBINED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentage%

NoneproposedNo

Yes

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 insubdivisions applications as an averaged percentage on a per year basis for the studyperiod.

Commentary:

The indicator does not show a clear trend. Few applications showed any detail on urbanwater management


45/100




Ease of site

SITE EASE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

percentageofprojects

1

2

3

4

5

Explanation:

Indication of the complexity of site development possibly explaining limited compliance withLN.

Sample:

The graph shows the split of ratings of site ease as an averaged percentage, on a per yearbasis, for the study period.

Commentary:

No sites were free of constraints. Many sites were constrained in form (e.g. odd shapededges) and due to on site constraints (e.g. vegetation corridors). As indicated by the year1999, a small number of lot subdivisions have proportionally more site constraints. Thiscoincides with poorer performance in terms of other indicators.


46/100


47/100



There is a slight diversity in land use and residential density in subdivisionapplications.

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 segregatedpedestrian and vehicle movement systems.

The LN driven and interconnected street layout orthogonal street blocks has replaceda DC driven semi-interconnected street layout with curving roads and associatedwedge shaped blocks.

4.2.5 Mix of Uses and Employment

Mix of land use and employment generation is difficult to determine from a structureplan.

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 thestudy period.

Early applications located Public Open Space at estate gateways or around thesuburban 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 andused 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 roadswith 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 lessoften 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 ofLN principles in large developments in the years immediately after the introduction ofLN. Almost all larger developments now take the LN approach to urbandevelopment.

Large LN applications perform better than small LN applications because theyprovide more opportunity to create neighbourhoods. The per year data is affected byvariations in the modal scale of developments in that year.

In later years, some applications do not follow LN principles, however almost all ofthese applications incorporate some aspects of LN practices. Those that do notincorporate LN principles are often part of a larger, older and predominantly DCpolicy 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 performwell under LN. For example where an otherwise fine grain (in terms of street block


48/100



size) development includes a large block in a location where it isolates theneighbourhood from the centre.

Quality of design and the provision of appropriate plans and supporting informationappear closely linked.


49/100



5 KEY AREAS OF NON-CONFORMANCE

This section identifies the key areas where the applications failed to meet LN policy at thebroad 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 policiesare still an assessment alternative to LN, failure to meet some LN objectives andrequirements can be considered non-compliance with the higher level sustainabilityprinciples.

Increasingly, there is very little difference in design approach between planssubmitted under LN and those submitted under DC policy.

This should not be seen as grounds for perpetuity DC policies, there are areas where the DCpolicies imply an urban form that is in conflict with LN. DC policies state that the main roadinto 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 allowingtraffic to move between suburbs. The fact remains that there is a difference of design intentsubdivision 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 structureplan to act as a guide for well-informed decision-making. Conversely, a well presentedstructure plan usually results in a more interconnected and well designed subdivision.

There have been a number of difficulties in undertaking this study. The difficultiespredominantly 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 problemis 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 fullimplementation 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 developmentinto the surrounding urban fabric.


50/100


51/100



6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide an investigation into the overall trends in residentialsubdivision design and extent of compliance with the trial Liveable Neighbourhood policy(LN). The investigations, while intensive and broad ranging, led to a simple conclusion. Theconclusion is that generally, Liveable Neighbourhoods has been generally adopted by theindustry. 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 receivedas early as 1996. Each year the number of LN compliant applications increases, in relation toDC policy applications, to the point that genuine DC policy applications have ceased. Ingeneral, larger applications are more able and thus more likely to meet LN criteria thansmaller ones.

In some later years and on certain applications, LN policies are not strictly adhered to. Withinthe scope of this study, it is not possible to categorically state why this is, but the cause maybe one or more of the following:

1. The structure planning and regional road system framework fails to support properneighbourhood clustering and integration of centres into residential areas;

2. Applications are part of a larger approved development that confines the ease ofchanging development models;

3. The urban economics of the location fail to support the uses and range of residentialdensities.

Configuration of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout isincreasingly in accordance with LN policy. Inclusion of centres and proper integration withmajor roads and other neighbourhoods have not been fully addressed. It is not possible todetermine from the application plans the level of compliance with the more detailed aspects ofLN 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 itsstandard. 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 detailedlevel. 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 tobecome familiar with one design technique and assume that only this technique will deliverresults. 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 thepattern of street layout, park distribution, block configuration and lot layout.

LN proposed neighbourhoods centred on mixed use commercial centres located atkey intersections. There are few examples of this in the applications assessed.

Applications over the study period showed a trend towards a greater range of publicparkland located where it is visible and accessible. This represents a movementtowards LN policy.

The introduction of the LN policy appeared to have a minimal impact on the range ofresidential densities. Only a small increase in densities occurs in subdivision


52/100



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

There was little evidence of main street neighbourhood centres development withinthe sample. Where commercial centres are integrated within the residential area theyusually consist of one single block.

It was difficult to deliver a comprehensive LN response in small applications. Smallerapplications do not tend to consist of an entire neighbourhood. Therefore it is difficultto assess the application on elements often distributed throughout a neighbourhood.

By 2000 most applications incorporated significant elements of LN policy. Even priorto 2000 few applications strictly followed DC policy.

Properly prepared structure plans appear to result in better designed and integratedsubdivision applications.


53/100

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: 1996 - 2002 APPLICATION DATA


54/100

TABLE 1SUBDIVISION 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 - 15Augusta-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 3Cockburn 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 - - - - - - 1Jerramungup - - 1 - - - - 1

Joondalup partWanneroo

1 5 2 7 2 1 18

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 - - - 8Murray - 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 - 6Stirling 4 2 3 1 3 - 4 17

Swan 8 7 7 10 7 4 5 48

Toodyay - - - 2 - - - 2


55/100

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 2LOCAL 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%


56/100

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 67Roberts 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 - 8Chapman 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 - - - - - 2Landvision 2 - - - - - - 2

Other - 2 - 1 - - - 3

Other 16 15 20 14 7 9 17 98

TOTAL 105 115 109 89 55 61 96 630


57/100

APPENDIX 2 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT

This appendix contains the two indicator sets used as a basis for the development of theproject indicators.


58/100

TABLE 1 -DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS (AS PROVIDEDWITH TENDER)

Objective Indicator No. MeasurementCriteria

Measure Evaluation

Cluster ofinterconnectedand walkableneighbourhoods that formtowns

1.1 Neighbourhood coverage

% of Developmentarea covered bywalkableneighbourhoods

1.2 Connectivity Number of directconnections to otherneighbourhoods

High degree ofstreetconnectivitybetweenneighbourhoods to supportpublic

transport, anda clearhierarchicalstreet network

1.3 Street networkhierarchy

Is there a directnetwork ofneighbourhoodconnector routes?

Yes/No

1.4 Mixed usecentres

Evidence of mixed-useactivity centressupportingemployment? Yes/no

Provision ofmixed useactivitycentre(s)

1.5 Centressupported bymovementnetwork

Are centres onneighbourhoodconnectors or higherorder streets?Yes/No

1.6 Diversity of lotsizes

Yes/NoState range, minimumand maximum

Housingdiversity andfocussedgrowth areas 1.7 Focussed

growthIs density focussed400m around a centre,800, around a railwaystation. Yes/No

1.8 Distribution of parkland

Is parkland evenlydistributed/accessible?Yes/No

1.9 Diversity of park size

Yes/NoState range, smallestand largest

Element One:COMMUNITY

DESIGN

Increasedclarity,functionalityandintegration ofthe sub-regional urbanstructure

(Note:applicablemainly tostructure planapplications)

A network ofwell distributedparks that areaccessible andvaried

1.10 Siteresponsive

Parks that retainnatural/environmentalfeaturesYes/No


59/100

Objective Indicator No. MeasurementCriteria

Measure Evaluation

A connectedand eff ic ientstreet network

that minimisesthrough traffic

2.1 Connectivity Intersections/km2

2.2 Access streetwidth

Reserve width ofmajority of accessstreets

A clear streethierarchy thatbalancesfunction,legibility,convenience,traffic volume,speed, publics a f e t y a n damenity

2.3 Legibility Weightedintersections/km2

2.4 Walkability % of residents

(pedshed) withindescribed distance ofmost s igni f icantcommunity facility(do one only):-800m of rail station,if no station the:-400m of activitycentre, if no centrethen:-400m of school, ifno school the:-400m of largest park

Walkable,

permeablenetwork

2.5 Street blocklength

Maximum streetblock length

Element Two:MOVEMENTNETWORK

Enhancedmovementnetwork for allusers of thestreet

Street design toaccommodateand manage allusers

2.6 Footpath/DUPprovision

Majority of streetswith at least onefootpath


60/100


61/100

TABLE 2 -PRECINCT PLANNING INDICATORS

CITY OF JOONDALUP PRECINCT ACTION PLANNING PROGRAM INDICATORS(TESTED AND USED IN THE PRECINCT CENTRES REVIEW REPORT FEBRUARY2001)

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 Exposure8. 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 placingstress on the area. These trends, measured though indicators, suggest the need toundertake Precinct Planning and indicate where effort should be focused on the basis ofthreat or pressure.

Indicators

Commercial Viability

The viability of a Centre indicates itsrelative attraction to users. Many factorscan affect Commercial Viability and thereis a range of signs of poor performance.Deliberate use of the asset as a tax writeoff and other actions can mask the trueviability of a Centre and even the mostsuccessful Centres experience vacancies.On the whole the measures tend to befair ly rel iable especial ly whenaccompanied by anecdotal evidence from

shopkeepers and letting agents.

Measures:

High vacancy levels at localCentres.

High levels of rental property orvacancy in standard owner-occupier (family) housing.

Neighbourhood Compatibility

Neighbourhood compatibility refers to thecorrelation between the demographic ofthe community and the role of the Centre.While ultimately each neighbourhood

should support a diverse community thereare definite variations between differentneighbourhoods and suburbs. Thecentres should include a range of


62/100

attractions tailored to the local community.See section on graphs and tables.

Measure:

Mixed use for a variety of servicesi.e. not a zone of one type of retail.

Local Wealth Generation

Personal Wealth reflects the relativecomfort or stress experience in thecommunity due to rate of growth inproperty values. In an area where valuesare not increasing or increasing at aslower pace than other areas, thecommunity is losing the opportunity torealise capital gains and having theirfuture housing choice restricted to similarlypoorly performing areas.

High rentals of single houses alsoindicates poor wealth generation as trendsare towards independence for those whocan afford it while the family continues tobe a major source of owner occupiertenure. Rental of houses to groups orsingle parent families tends to indicate thatproperty values are falling behind suburbswith similar levels of access to amenities/proximity to beach or City. Slum Lordsmay still be making money but the localcommunity may not be generating theirown wealth.

Areas in extreme decline tend to attractand reinforce long term unemployment.Unemployment itself tends to result in verylow disposable income and as a resultlocal businesses may suffer poor tradeand profit. Thus unemployment is a goodmeasure of Local Wealth Generation.

Measures:

Relative property value growth.

Home tenure percentage bysuburb.

Level of unemployment or longterm under-employment.

Community LifeCommunity breakdown due to increasingseparation between employment, retail,family and cultural activities. VibrantCentres full of people enjoying passive oractive exchange with other members ofthe local community indicates successfulcommunity life. These Centres enableindividuals to pass the time, express theirown identify and develop a sense ofbelonging.

Measures:

Area of residential (permanentcommunity presence) and otheruses in the Centre.

Level of local employment (HBBetc bringing work and lifetogether.)

Personal Safety and Well being

Sense of security underlies communitydevelopment, and fear undermines theuse of places and enjoyment of local

community. It increases the sense ofisolation, frustration and anxiety. Crimestatistics are useful but must beaccompanied with indications of theperceptions of safety or safe environmentaudits (level of passive surveillance ofpublic areas form adjacent land uses).

Measure:

Incidence of crime againstproperty or person in public space.


63/100

ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS:

Public investment should endeavour to ensure economic, social and environmental returns sothat it covers the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. Urban design strives to ensurethis but can only be successful where the existing urban environment allows forimprovements or public, community and private interests are prepared to contribute

considerable resources to retrofitting.

Indicators:

Planning Opportunity.

Land use capability, bush plan andheritage issues tend not to complicate theregeneration of Centres in the City ofJoondalup. Instead however, the extent ofstrata ownership means that even a wellco-ordinated Strata group will have tonegotiate many details to arrange for an

enhancement of the Centre. While this isan important, opportunity for gain onlytends to drive agreements when there issignificant opportunity for expansion. Theallowable floor space allocated to aCentre, but not taken up, is used as anindicator accepting that some Centres willnever take up their allowable floor spacedue to poor location or site constraints.

The Centres Strategy for the City ofJoondalup supports a wide range of usesin centres meaning that most pedestrian

based activities can be approved underthe Strategy even where allowable floorspace has be taken up.

Measure:

Permitted expansion of usesagainst Metropolitan CentresPolic

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	publichealthbydesign
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Liveable Neighbour Hoods Review - GWA Australia - 2003

Documents