0

The Capacity of State and Local Government

to Deliver Sustainable and Integrated Transport

WORKING PAPER No. 1

Perth: Policy Position

August 2009

Carey Curtis and Rachel Armstrong

Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management of Transport

(GAMUT)

Curtin University of Technology

1

2

Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7

2. Research Approach ................................................................................................................................... 11

Aim ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

Approach ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Review of government process and policy relevant to the integration of land use and transport, and the collation of policy documents ..................................................................................................................... 13 The ‘Land Use Transport Integration’ principles ........................................................................................ 15 Content Analysis method ............................................................................................................................ 19 Selection of documents for content analysis ............................................................................................... 20 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 23

3. The governance of land use and transport integration in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region .. 25

Western Australian State Government ............................................................................................................. 27

Local Government ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Regional Councils ............................................................................................................................................ 29

4. Policy for Land use and transport integration in the Perth Metropolitan Region .............................. 33

State Government statutory policy documents ................................................................................................. 34

State strategic policy documents ...................................................................................................................... 36

Local Government Policy ................................................................................................................................ 38

Local Planning Schemes .................................................................................................................................. 40

Local Planning Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 41

Local Transport Strategies and Bicycle Plans ................................................................................................. 41

5. Content Analysis results ........................................................................................................................... 43

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Access ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 48 People Places .............................................................................................................................................. 51

Detailed results ................................................................................................................................................ 52 Access criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 66 People Places Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 81

Detailed analysis of local planning schemes against 5 key criteria ................................................................ 91

Ambiguity or negative representation in state and local government policy ................................................... 99

Metroplan and Network City: changing representation of LUTI criteria in Perth’s strategic planning documents over time. ..................................................................................................................................... 100

6 Discussion and scoping for stage two of the research project ............................................................. 101

Addressing the research question .................................................................................................................. 102

Progressing to stage two of the research ....................................................................................................... 103

7 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 113

3

8 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 114

9 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 117

Appendix 1A: ................................................................................................................................................. 118

Appendix 1B: Full suite of Policy Documents by Local Government from which sample is drawn ............. 121

Appendix 2 LUTI Content Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 5

Appendix 3 Example Content Analysis – City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 .............................. 7

Appendix 4: Local Government Profiles .......................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 5: Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by positive, negative or mixed reference to LUTI Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 6 Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by highest rating score for each LUTI criterion .................................................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix 7 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning schemes by location .................. 29

Appendix 8 Representation of LUTI criteria in local government planning schemes by LGA population ...... 31

Appendix 9 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning schemes by number of employees ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 10 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning schemes by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted .......................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 11 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning schemes by membership to the sustainable transport coalition ........................................................................................................................ 37

4

Executive Summary Globally, the capacity of local and regional governments to implement policy and invest in integrated land use and transport decisions has emerged as an important issue for urban transport policy and for urban policy in general. In Australia there is a National Charter on Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning and at the state level, in Western Australia, the metropolitan local governments have an ‘Integrated Transport Planning Partnering Agreement’ with the objective of working cooperatively with the state. However, bringing together the policy tools to achieve optimal planning outcomes in such a way to aid delivery is an ongoing challenge.

This working paper reports the results of a content analysis of state and local government policy texts in order to understand the capacity of government for land use and transport integration in the Greater Perth metropolitan area. Our interests also encompass the need to understand the extent to which there is ‘vertical integration’ of policy – from state to local government, and the extent to which there is ‘horizontal integration’ of policies documents within any given agency or level of government. This is the first stage of the research; the second stage will focus on the barriers to the delivery of land use transport integration. Findings from both stages aim to identify how the capacity of state and local government can be improved. In addition to the Perth case study, a study of metropolitan Melbourne is in progress.

Policies represent the ‘front door’ of the particular agency; they can indicate the extent to which there is any capacity for land use transport integration as conceived in this project. We acknowledge that the texts are open to multiple interpretations, they are influenced by the content and interpretation of other policy texts and that interpretation and emphasis changes with the political climate in which policy is interpreted. In Stage 2 of this research we aim to delve much deeper into the organisational dynamics and interrelationships that influence policy development and implementation, but as a pre-requisite to that work it is important to understand the way in which policy texts are presented in published documents.

A comprehensive suite of land use transport integration (LUTI) principles were developed to frame policy content analysis and are grouped into three key components: ‘access’, ‘land use’, and 'people places'. Policy statements were assessed, recording whether these made both a positive or negative (productive or counter-productive) contribution towards LUTI and a how well (or poorly) the policy statement performed in relation to satisfaction of LUTI criteria. Overall, it was found that there was significant commitment to many of the principles that enable the integration of land use and transport. This was particularly the case in non-statutory policy at both the state government and local government levels, although not all local governments have developed these policy types. Statutory policy at the state government level, compared to the statutory local planning schemes, shows more consistent and broader coverage of the LUTI principles. In local planning schemes, the representation of LUTI criteria is inconsistent and often patchy and, therefore, can be seen to currently reflect varied capacity to implement LUTI across local government, and often, a limited capacity to support LUTI.

In relation to the three categories of LUTI criteria: ‘Access’ There significant gaps in coverage of ‘access’ criteria in both state and local government

documents around the operational aspects of public transport service and this demonstrates a gap in the capacity to deliver LUTI.

Particular state government documents provide the greatest breadth of support across ‘access’ criteria and include the Metropolitan Transport Strategy, Network City and the Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Codes.

5

It is noted that local government in metropolitan Perth has limited responsibility for public transport, and only has responsibility for local roads; nevertheless these policy shortcomings demonstrate a limit in the capacity to deliver LUTI.

Of particular note is that whilst coverage of access criteria was patchy at the local government level, most of the criteria were covered in at least a few local planning schemes. This suggests that schemes can be supportive of many of the access criteria; so while local planning schemes may be a blunt tool for the implementation of the access elements of land use and transport, they can, and in some cases, do a better job.

‘Access’ criteria are better captured in local government Transport Planning Strategies, however local government are not required to produce these policy documents and neither are they necessarily integrated with local government planning policy documents.

Even where Local Transport Strategies showed the best coverage of access criteria, there was a similar gap around some of the operational aspects of public transport. Importantly, however, the Transport Strategy for one local government (South Perth) covered all criteria in the subcategory of service demonstrating that capacity in this aspect can be developed.

‘Land Use’ There were fewer pronounced gaps in coverage across the suite of documents for ‘land use’

criteria than there were for access criteria. The most notable gaps are in relation to detailing land use configuration and design to support high pedestrian trip generating uses in close proximity of transit stops. This is absent from state government documents and covered only in a few local planning schemes.

Coverage of land use criteria, in terms of strength and breadth, is slightly stronger in the suite of state government documents than in the local planning schemes.

There is much diversity in how local government documents cover the LUTI land use criteria. Whilst the breadth of coverage of criteria in the local planning schemes is better than for the access criteria, coverage is inconsistent between local governments. Where local planning schemes are supportive of land use criteria, they are most likely to be only weakly supportive of them.

There is no clear framework or trend by which LUTI criteria are incorporated, yet all the criteria are covered in at least a few local planning schemes, suggesting that they can all be supported by local planning schemes, even though in practice they are not.

‘People places’ ‘People places’ criteria were covered better in local government documents than state government

documents as a whole. At the state government level there are significant gaps of coverage. In relation to vertical integration (state to local): There is a broader trend where the highest degree of vertical integration is associated with the

LUTI criteria that contain less specific detail for planning. In relation to particular LUTI categories, ‘access’ considerations are less integrated than ‘land

use’ or ‘people places’. Local planning strategies also show stronger support for access criteria than local government

planning schemes – many of the access criteria are supported, or strongly supported, whereas in cases where local planning schemes provide support to the access criteria, they are for the most part only weakly supportive.

In relation to horizontal integration: There is little correlation in the way that LUTI ‘access’ criteria are dealt with in planning

strategies and local planning schemes in individual local governments. This is also the case for ‘land use’ criteria, although an exception to this is the City of Fremantle local planning strategy. This finding is a concern, given the role of local planning strategies in informing the ongoing development of local planning schemes – however perhaps in the future these links will become more consistent.

6

Similarly, there is no coherent link between the planning schemes and the local transport strategies or the bicycle plans in terms of their support for access criteria.

Fixing the age of the plan to enable a consideration of capacity by age of policy is not easy. The year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted varies between local governments from 1983 to 2007. There have been amendments to some schemes during this period, but these relate to particular aspects of the scheme and are not designed to replace the scheme as a whole. Where amendments have been made these have been analysed in our research but we have not changed the gazettal date of the plan to reflect this later policy. Notwithstanding this point, over time there has been a trend toward greater capacity for policy to support for LUTI in policy texts in recent years. This is particularly so for ‘access’ criteria, where local planning schemes drafted since 2000 reflect more access criteria and more consistently. This may be related to the introduction by the State in 1999 of the Model Scheme Text, which guides the content of local planning schemes. There are, however, significant anomalies, the planning schemes for Stirling (1985) Swan (1985), Mundaring (1994), and in particular, Mandurah (1999) all showed comparatively good coverage despite being outside this timeframe. The time trend is much less clear for land use criteria. The three schemes that reflect positively the most land use criteria are Swan (1985), Bassendean (1983) and Fremantle (2007) through it would appear that there is a more consistent reflection of land use criteria schemes drafted since 1999. A brief analysis of the effect of particular local government characteristics, such as location, size of government (measured by both resident population and number of local government employees) suggests a possible relationship between these factors. Local Governments with more employees, larger populations and more recently drafted planning schemes tend to refer positively to more of the LUTI ‘land use’ and ‘access’ criteria. Limited inference can be drawn from membership of the local government to the Sustainable Transport Coalition in terms of the number of LUTI criteria that were positively reflected. However in assessing particular local government characteristics, there were also many examples of outliers to this analysis suggesting that there are several other factors at work. There are also likely to be additional local government specific factors that affect policy integration and implementation and these will be explored in detail during Stage 2 of the research.

From this first stage of research there would appear to be benefits in introducing the following measures aimed at improving the capacity of state and local government to deliver sustainable and integrated transport: A statutory requirement for all local governments to produce a Local Transport Strategy, similar

to Local Transport Plans prepared in the UK. An improvement to the mechanisms to ensure state policy is articulated into local government

policy. This may require both a review of the Model Scheme Text and a review of the way in which local schemes and strategies are assessed by the state.

An improvement in the way local planning schemes are integrated with and informed by policy contained in the local planning strategy.

The ‘showcasing’ of exemplars in professional workshops.

7

Introduction This paper is the first in a series of Working Papers reporting on the research findings for the

project ‘The Capacity of State and Local Government to Deliver Sustainable and Integrated

Transport: A case study investigation in Perth and Melbourne’. The purpose of the research

is to understand with precision the real barriers created by the horizontal and vertical

governmental relationships. In this working paper the results of a policy content analysis are

presented, the focus is on how the principles for land use and transport integration are

reflected in relevant state and local government policy in Perth.

'Land use and transport integration' is seen as a means of achieving sustainable travel

outcomes, a message reinforced by the National Charter on Integrated Land Use and

Transport Planning (DOTARS, 2003). In Western Australia the 30 metropolitan local

governments signed an agreement in 2001 to work cooperatively with the state in accordance

with an ‘Integrated Transport Planning Partnering Agreement’ (DPI, 2001). Historically, the

state government has played the major role in the development and management of transport

policy and transport systems. However the importance of state – local government

partnerships to enable place-based integration of transport policy is now recognised.

Important roles for local government include establishing community visions; forming

policy; undertaking integrated transport planning; and making connections to planning and

development control (Richardson, 2002). In practice, while there has been policy support for

the integration of land use and transport planning in Western Australia for some time,

implementation has been selective and the Perth’s urban form is reflective of low density

suburban sprawl. This makes transport choices other than the car difficult and compromises

progress toward a more sustainable city. Pressure for ‘Greenfield’ development on the urban

fringe continues (Curtis, 2008).

8

Globally, the capacity of local and regional governments to implement policy and invest in

integrated land use and transport decisions has emerged as an important issue for urban

transport policy and for urban policy in general (ECMT/OECD, 2003). However while

optimal planning outcomes are well understood in theory, bringing together the policy tools

to make them happen is an ongoing challenge (Kennedy et al, 2005). In many western

European countries and the USA the trend has been to devolve decision making and

resources to the local level, and this is also the case in Australia. Given this direction it is

important to examine the degree to which integrated land use and transport planning policy is

being adopted by local and state institutions, the influence of any such policy on decision

making and the difficulties encountered in implementation (Breheny et al, 1996). As Condon

(2008) illustrates, there is often a disjunction between high-level strategic plans and

implementation (Condon, 2008).

Banister (2005) identifies six types of barriers to implementation: resource; institutional and

policy; social and cultural; legal; 'side effects' (effects of one action reduce the outcome of

another action); and physical barriers. Reitveld and Stough (2005) argue that one of the

primary barriers to the delivery of sustainable transport is the institutional barrier. Such

barriers can either reduce the potential of delivery, or make it impossible to achieve (Banister,

2005). Conversely, Kennedy et al (2005) identify enabling factors to sustainable transport

planning as: integrative governance across transport and land use planning, stable funding,

strategic infrastructure investment and local design. Achieving implementation requires an

understanding of two components – the rules and rule structures that guide action (North,

1990) and the organisations as agents of those rules with particular organisational dynamics

that influence actions and implementation. An analysis of the institutional barriers can then

9

provide for an exploration of the interactions between different levels of public sector policy,

and examination of the benefits to be achieved from policies which reallocate authority from

one level of government to the next. By examining how organisations operate, via an analysis

of their policy instruments, it is possible to begin an evaluation of the impact, in part, on

delivery of sustainable transport outcomes.

One type of institutional barrier arises where there is an inability of one jurisdiction of

government to effect the actions of another (Ubbels and Verhoef, 2005) and it is this area of

research which requires further investigation in Western Australia: the ability of state

agencies to effect the delivery of sustainable transport through other state agencies and

through local agencies; and the ability for agencies at the local level to influence each other

for more holistic and integrated outcomes. This gives rise to the following research

questions:

1. What is the current capacity (using statutory and non-statutory powers) of state and local

public agencies to integrate land use and transport planning towards achieving

infrastructure/services for collective and active modes of transport?

2. What is the current capacity of state and local public agencies to integrate land use and

transport planning and manage car-based travel?

3. What are the institutional constraints (rules, finance, structures, cultures etc) to delivery?

4. How can the capacity be improved?

With these questions in mind our research has three main objectives:

1) To assess, through a content analysis of key state and local government policy

documents, the capacity of the governmental system in Australia to deliver

sustainable and integrated land-use/transport outcomes;

10

2) To detail the horizontal (interagency) and vertical (intergovernmental – state/local)

relationships at bureaucratic level that come into play to restrict integrated land

use/transport outcomes; and

3) To identify how the capacity of the governmental system can be improved.

This paper reports on the findings for objective one for the Perth case study. Prior to

presenting the results of the content analysis, a review of government relationships and

government policy is necessary in order to frame the context for the content analysis results.

Whilst the content analysis documented in this working paper focuses on government policy,

as reflected in policy documents, the broader context of government relationships that affect

the drafting and implementation of policy is also central to this study, and will be the core

focus of research undertaken in Stage 2 of the project.

11

2. Research Approach

Aim

The study is aimed at assessing the capacity of the planning and infrastructure institutions in

the Greater Perth Metropolitan Area to deliver sustainable and integrated land-use/transport

outcomes. In this Working Paper we report the findings of the first stage of our research. We

assess the suite of policies and strategies of local government and state government agencies.

These policies and strategies are evaluated against a comprehensive set of land use transport

integration criteria. The aim of this stage of the research is to produce a comprehensive

position statement about the degree to which, and in what way public institutions aspire to the

delivery of sustainable transport, and the extent of that aspiration.

Study Area

We have taken an area that, for this study, will be called the Greater Perth Metropolitan Area.

This area comprises of 32 local government authorities (LGA’s) (see Figure 2.1 – note

Mandurah LGA at the southern extremity is also included but absent from this figure) and is

greater than what is considered as metropolitan Perth as defined by the Metropolitan Region

Scheme (the statutory planning scheme). Instead the boundaries of this project are drawn

around the extent of the actual urban area (as far as local government boundaries coincide

with this extent).

12

(source: Commonwealth of Australia 2008, 299)

Figure 2.1: Perth Local Government Authorities

13

Approach

Review of government process and policy relevant to the integration of land use

and transport, and the collation of policy documents

In order to frame the research, a review of government relationships in Western Australia

and of the relevant policy documents at the state and local level was undertaken. A wide

range of policy documents that aim to portray the land use and transport policies of each

particular agency were collated from local and state authorities in Perth. This is in line with

the focus of stage 1 for this research, upon which this working paper reports.

‘Policy’ includes both the texts that guide direction, as well as the discourse and actions of

the individuals and organisations that manage policy interpretation and implementation.

Policy texts themselves are open to multiple interpretations, and are influenced by the content

and interpretation of other policy texts. Policy interpretation and emphasis changes with the

political climate in which policy is interpreted (Ball, 1993). Policy is not only an output from

the political system, but open to interests and demands articulated from outside the political

system (Radaelli, 1995). It is therefore best viewed as an open ended and interactive process

rather than a particular, time limited outcome, such as that represented in a document. Stage

one of this research, reported in this working paper, focuses only on the policy texts that

guide direction. In Stage 2 of this research, we aim to delve much deeper into the

organisational dynamics and interrelationships that influence policy development and

implementation. As a pre-requisite to the Stage 2 work it is, nevertheless, important to gain

some impression of the way in which policy texts are presented in published documents,

notwithstanding the above discussion. One key reason for so doing is that these policies

14

represent the ‘front door’ of the particular agency – they indicate the extent to which there is

any capacity for land use transport integration as conceived in this project.

In 2004, Curtis and James described the relationship between policy and institutions in land

use and transport planning based on the following assumption:

…government policy is progressed by institutions towards the desired outcome by virtue of the

approach institutions take to land use transport integration, the use of resources and tools, and the

relationships between the agencies within the institution. The achievement of the desired outcomes

then informs government policy thereby closing the loop. In practice the process is not linear and

can comprise numerous iterations within this loop as each stage informs previous stages (p278)

The interrelationship between different types of policy in the area of planning is unique, as a

result of the need for clear legal instruments to guide planning and development decisions;

the need for long term strategic visions and frameworks to guide development; and at times,

the need to develop policy in response to particular developments as they occur. In the

Australian system, planning statutes are the legal instruments by which development

decisions are made, however there are also a plethora of policies of different types that

inform interpretation of statutory policy and therefore decision-making. Some non-statutory

policy is given legal status by reference in planning statutes (Stein, 2008). For example

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Statement of Planning Policy 3 (SPP3)

Urban Growth and Settlement (2006:1069) states “Future metropolitan growth will be

planned and managed in accordance with Network city. Network city is the metropolitan

strategy for Perth and Peel.” Other non-statutory policy, such as the diverse range of

planning policies held by local governments, has no legal status, but still guides – or enables

particular decisions at the local level (Stein, 2008).

15

Strategic planning policy in Perth, through Network City Community Planning Strategy

(WAPC, 2004) and for Australian cities more generally has moved toward sustainability

generally, and land use and transport integration in particular, as a central element to the

creation of sustainable urban form (Bunker and Searle, 2009). Sustainability is also

incorporated in the Western Australian Planning and Development Act (2005), where one of

the purposes of the act is to “promote the sustainable use and development of land in the

State” (Part 1, Section 3.1C). Implementing land use and transport integration throughout the

urban fabric requires mutually supportive integration of State and local level policy. Whilst

policy documents are not enough to ensure this, they do set the framework though which the

many small scale and local decisions required to achieve this can be made. They are therefore

a central part of analysing the policy framework for land use and transport integration. A

comprehensive analysis of the horizontal and vertical relationships relevant to the governance

of land use and transport integration is included in the background discussion in section 3:

The governance of land use and transport integration in the Greater Perth Metropolitan

region – and overview of government relationships and policy.

The ‘Land Use Transport Integration’ principles

A comprehensive set of land use transport integration (LUTI) principles were developed to

frame policy content analysis. A broad definition of LUTI would include physical, spatial,

behavioural and institutional characteristics. The content analysis reported in this working

paper focuses on the physical and spatial characteristics. However it is recognised that in

order to achieve LUTI all four aspects must be addressed as they are complementary (see for

example Rietveld and Stough, 2005; Curtis and James, 2004, on behavioural or institutional

aspects). Behavioural and institutional characteristics will be investigated through more

detailed case study analysis in stage 2.

16

The definition of LUTI must also be placed in the context of sustainability, and presumes a

holistic approach to providing access while reducing the need to travel. This would mean

(taking action in this order):

Adapted from: Potter and Skinner, 2000; Bertolini and le Clerq, 2003.

A key characteristic of this approach is using land use planning as a means of managing and

reducing travel demand. Here the focus is on providing for proximity of activities using an

accessibility planning approach, where the objective is to maximise the benefits from

interactions between land uses and transport modes, rather than solely a focus on maximising

the performance of the transport network (Curtis and James, 2004).

These core principles that define land use transport integration from a physical/spatial

perspective are shown in Table 1. These have been developed with reference to the literature,

policy documents, and a survey of local experts based in Perth (see Curtis, 2005 for a fuller

explanation).

• providing alternatives to travel (home deliveries, telecommunications);

• increasing the opportunity to walk or cycle (by providing physical space and continuous networks);

• where motorised travel is necessary, providing for easy transfer between modes through both physical

location (and infrastructure), information, timetabling and ticketing;

• improving public transport options; and

• ensuring more efficient use of cars

17

Table 1 Land Use Transport Integration – Physical Planning Principles Access The Network • high degree of interconnectedness to urban system (adjacent centres, residential

catchments, transit interchanges) • balance of access between through-travel and travel to the place; local and regional access

requirements • choice of transport options in close proximity to many homes and facilities - the

possibility of substituting the right mode for the specific trip Activity function (rather than transport function)

• highly connected street network focussed on access to centres and transit stops, permeable for people

• well designed walkable catchments, high quality pedestrian experience - safe, well lit, trees, shelter

• arterial roads have safe pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes Traffic Management • lower traffic speeds, moderate traffic volumes, narrower streets (but not at the expense of

conditions for cyclists) • effective traffic management • pedestrian priority

Service • integrated transport - easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these modes to destinations reached on foot; seamless and safe connections, ease of movement

• in operational terms – timetabling; easy to navigate system, high frequency, reliable, efficient public transport service to many destinations– no need for consulting timetables

• safe, secure, convenient and comfortable stations, stops and interchanges • accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc. • cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity • good business servicing opportunities

Land Use Land use configuration • land use integrated with integrated transport

• a robust urban form – can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use • greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses (within precincts and within buildings) • high pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of

transit stop • buildings oriented to station/streets/paths • active ground floor uses for surveillance • frontage development - human scale

Density/Intensity • highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types)

• medium to high residential densities Proximity • compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity

(walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop • more intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses (measured

by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities Parking • car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromised

• parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites • car parking behind buildings not fronting street • street parking • short term parking but limited commuter parking • car-based retailing (drive-thru') and light industry located on periphery of town with good

car access 'People Places' Scale and Design • human scale – less demand for 70kph scale advertising, more public art opportunities,

sense that cars are not the priority mode • integration of character and scale of development within precinct • respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic re-development) • diversity of architectural styles • legible design - is easily understood for residents and visitors

Amenity • high amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right • community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly • good 'people places' – public open space, public seating, public art • more social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport • busy places

(Source: Curtis, 2005)

18

The core principles are grouped into three key components: access, land use, and 'people

places'. 'Access' principles involve creating a transport network connected to centres, capable

of meeting local and regional travel needs. Many of the daily activities should be served

locally. The network must provide for transport choice and recognise the way in which

journey purposes may have different spatial reach, thus enabling local trips to be undertaken

by walking and cycling, inter-suburban trips by public transport, and those less frequent trips

outside centres and further afield to be undertaken by car. 'Land Use' principles focus on

locating higher density/intensity uses close to transit, and clustering complementary uses in

walking proximity to each other and to transit. 'People places' focuses on urban design at the

human scale assuming pedestrian and bicycle priority.

These principles have their roots in both the transport and urban design disciplines.

Westerman (1998) argues that land use location and the transport network must not be

planned independently. In planning the transport network the focus should be on equal access

to places rather than on provision for through-traffic (Schaeffer and Sclar,1975; Yenken,

1995). Common principles include concentrating development in locations that have access

to public transport; developing mixed use; higher densities that can support a choice of

transport modes; locating complementary activities closer together; giving priority to public

transport; and controlling parking to encourage public transport use. Through-traffic should

be directed away from 'people-places' where streets should be traffic calmed providing space

for all modes in a safe, attractive and convenient manner. There should be a strong sense of

place including street-oriented uses along arterials (Westerman, 1998; Ministry of

Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 1995). At the neighbourhood scale the

focus is on a physical environment that encourages walking and cycling. Appleyard and

Lintel (1972), Whyte (1980), Gehl (1987), Tibbalds (2001), Jacobs (2001) all argue for

19

particular qualities of city space based on designing at a human-scale – reducing distance

between buildings, and increasing activity on the street in order to maximise the opportunity

for contact and observation. It is not just the physical distance that is important but also the

quality of the experience: the design of buildings and orientation to the street and mix of uses

to serve daily activity needs. They argue for replacement of car-dominated city centres by

pedestrian-scale street systems.

Content Analysis method

Content analysis methodology provides a systematic and quantitative approach to the analysis

of text (Neuendorf, 2005). It involves the use of codes for textual analysis in order to compile

the messages contained in the texts in a condensed form, enabling an assessment of patterns

and trends both within and across documents (Stemler, 2001). Content analysis is therefore

ideal to enable assessment of the content of policy texts in terms of land use and transport

integration and to assess the degree of horizontal (state level between documents) and vertical

integration (state to local policy) present towards achieving land use and transport

integration.

In the content analysis reported on in this working paper, the patterns and trends being

evaluated are the integration of Land Use and Transport Integration within and across policy

documents relevant to the Perth Metropolitan region. Achieving this involves the

development of exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories as a basis for content analysis

(Stemler, 2001). This was carried out by assessing each document (policy, strategy etc)

against a set of core ‘land use transport integration’ (LUTI) principles derived from earlier

research (Curtis, 1998; 1999; 2005).

20

The assessment of documents against these core LUTI principles was carried out using the

template shown in Appendix 2. This provided for the recording of particular policy

statements, recording whether these made either a positive or negative (productive or counter

productive) contribution towards LUTI and the use of a rating system to broadly indicate how

well (or poorly) the policy statement performed in relation to satisfaction of LUTI criteria.

The rating system used a 7 point scale:

3 Strongly satisfies LUTI criterion

2 Satisfies LUTI criterion

1 Weakly satisfies LUTI criterion

0 Ambiguous

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

An example data sheet for the content analysis is included in Appendix 3 for the City of

Fremantle Local Planning Scheme no. 4.

Selection of documents for content analysis

There are a very wide range of potential policy documents that could be analysed (see

Appendix 1B), but time and resources limit this research (as is generally the case). This

required a sample of documents to be selected (see Appendix 1A). In this respect, the

documents ultimately selected for content analysis were those that are central to framing

planning decision making, either strategically, or through statutory requirements, at the state

and local level. The suite of documents analysed includes statutory documents, such as Local

Planning Schemes (this is a core document which each local government is required by law

to produce – it guides the development of land), and at the State level, Development Control

21

Policies and Statements of Planning Policy. It also includes documents with a more strategic

planning orientation, such as Network City Community Planning Strategy at the state level,

and Local Planning Strategies designed to provide an overarching guide the development and

implementation of statutory policy, and to set the context for development decisions. The

documents and the relationships between different departments and levels of government are

discussed in detail in section 3 of this working paper.

The documents from the state government level ultimately selected for analysis were:

• The State Planning Strategy (1997)

• The Perth Metropolitan Transport Strategy (1995-2029);

• Network City Community Planning Strategy (2004);

• Metroplan (1990, replaced by Network City in 2004);

• The Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Code Edition 2 (2000);

• WAPC Statement of Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth Settlement (March 2006);

• WAPC Development Control Policy 1.5 Bicycle Planning (July 1998);

• WAPC Development Control Policy 1.6, Planning to Support Transit Use and Transit

Oriented Development (January 2006);

• WAPC Development Control Policy 2.6 Residential Road Planning (June 1998)

The documents selected for local government authorities for analysis were:

• Local Planning Schemes (LPS) for each local government;

• and for those local governments that had them:

o Local Planning Strategies;

o Local Transport Strategies; and

o Local Bicycle Plans

22

These documents are discussed in more detail in section 4. While there are other relevant

documents at a regional council level, such as Strategic plans, Regional Environmental

Initiatives and at the local level, such as sustainability strategies, the rationale for the

selection of the above suite of documents is that collectively, these make up the most direct

and significant core of the overall policy framework that facilitates the delivery of sustainable

and integrated transport in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region.

The documents were gathered by searching the websites of each of the authority and then by

a follow up phone call to that authority to obtain any further documents not listed or

accessible via the web. Document selection and collation occurred in late 2006, and the

document analysis therefore reflects the suite of documents that were available for analysis at

this time. One limitation of this method of search was that not all the documents were

available on the authority websites. Some sites were difficult to navigate making it difficult to

find documents. Another limitation was that due to high turn-over rates of staff at authorities

the contact person was sometimes not aware of what policies would relate to land use

transport integration. While this can be seen as a potential weakness for this aspect of the

research (in that there may not be comprehensive coverage) it can also be seen in the context

of the authority’s ability to properly make its policies and strategies publicly accessible. This

may impact on the ability to implement those policies and therefore on the authorities

capacity to deliver sustainable and integrated transport. A complete list of documents

selected and analysed is shown at Appendix 1A.

23

Data analysis

Following the content analysis, two sets of data were compiled for each document as follows:

Data set 1 provides a summative indication for each of the LUTI criteria, coded as follows:

1 Document has content that satisfies the LUTI criterion

2 Document has content that works against the LUTI criterion

3 Document has some content that satisfies the LUTI criterion, and some data that

works against the criterion.

This data set does not consider the relative strength of policy statements in the document in

relation to each LUTI criterion. The purpose of this data set is to get an overall indication, for

each document as to whether there is generally, support, lack of support, or ambiguity in

relation to each LUTI criteria. A summary of the content analysis for data set 1 is available in

Appendix 5 Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by positive, negative

or mixed reference to LUTI Criteria

Data set 2 records the highest point achieved on the seven point rating scale (-3 through to

+3) used for the content analysis (see content analysis method above) in each document in

relation to each LUTI criteria – that is, the best case scenario as reflected in the document

(Appendix 6).

The rationale for compiling these two data sets is as follows. Firstly, we wanted an overall

measure of whether or not a document was supportive of each of the LUTI criteria and to

identify where there were mixed or ambiguous messages within a document in relation to the

LUTI criteria. Secondly, we wanted to present a realistic, but positive overall analysis of each

24

policy document, hence the choice of a data set that scores each document according to its

best rating.

It is important to note that our analysis does not include a count of how many times each

criterion was referenced in each document. In any one document, some criteria however may

have been coded several times, others only once (or not at all). With more time, this may

have been a useful way to also collect data in that it shows the degree to which a particular

LUTI criterion is infused across each document.

Several challenges were noted through the process of the content analysis. In many cases, the

documents analysed were lengthy and the process was therefore time consuming. There were

also observed implications from breaking down a policy document into separate elements to

score. Firstly, a qualitative assessment of the overall document is not achieved. Secondly,

data may become de-contextualised. For example, a local planning scheme could score +3 for

the criterion relating to medium to high residential densities because one precinct within the

scheme strongly advocates for higher density, whereas the overall picture for the total scheme

area works against higher densities. This was the case for the Melville Local Planning

Scheme (1999), and is reflected in the score for ambiguity in this document. Finally, the sheer

amount of data generated makes analysis complex.

25

3. The governance of land use and transport integration in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region The Australian constitution delegates power for urban planning to each state and territory,

which has its own statutory, policy and procedural planning framework (Williams, 2007).

The governance of land use and transport integration in Australia is therefore a state

government responsibility. There is no national framework for sustainable transport to direct

state and local government (Curtis, 2008). The power relationships across state government

departments and between state and local government play an important part in the

institutional capacity ability to deliver sustainable and integrated transport. So it is therefore

necessary understand the position of each level of government and its ability to influence land

use and transport integration.

The Greater Perth Metropolitan area (Perth metropolitan plus Peel area) is the jurisdiction of

32 Local Government Authorities, Five Regional Councils, the State Government of Western

Australia (see Figure 3.1) and the Federal Government of Australia (over Federal government

land only, for example the international and domestic airport). Each level of government has

its own interests and agenda that it pursues and coordination between competing agendas is a

challenge. It is therefore important to look at where the power to make decisions, enforce

policy and statutory authority lie. It is best to examine each layer of government individually.

The Federal government position will not be outlined as it is not in the scope of this study.

26

Figure 3.1 Government Structure: Greater Perth Metropolitan Region

State Government of Western Australia

Bassendean

Bayswater

Belmont

Kalamunda

Mundaring

Cambridge Armadale Canning Claremont Mandurah

Swan

Joondalup

Perth

Stirling

Wanneroo

Victoria

Vincent

Gosnells

South Perth

Cockburn

East

Fremantle

Kwinana

Melville

Rockingham

Cottesloe

Mosman

Peppermint

Subiaco

Murray

Nedlands

Serpentine

East Metropolitan

Regional Council

Mindarie Regional Council

South East Metropolitan

Regional Council

Southern Metropolitan

Regional Council

Western Metropolitan

Regional Council

27

Western Australian State Government

The Parliament of Western Australia has the power to legislate for town planning in the State

and has done so widely. The most important Act with respect to planning that the Parliament

has passed was the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (now superseded by the

Planning and Development Act 2005) with the stated purpose of the current Act being to,

‘provide for an efficient and effective land use planning system in the State; and

promote the sustainable use and development of land in State’

The Act establishes the requirements for approval of the subdivision of land and for

development and production of local government town planning schemes to guide and

control development at the local level. An independent authority, now the Western Australian

Planning Commission (previously State Planning Commission, previously Metropolitan

Planning Commission), was established for the purpose of making recommendations to the

Minister on the guidance and control of development. It has wide powers over all aspects of

planning in the state and can block a development. As coordinator of development and

infrastructure the Commission plays a key role in the integration of land use and transport

policy and in so guiding the approach to transport infrastructure provision.

The parliament can also legislate for planning in specific areas of the state that are perceived

to have special significance. For example the Swan Valley Planning Legislation Amendment

Act 1995 and the Swan Valley Planning Legislation Amendment Act (2006) were designed to

retain the Swan Valley as an agricultural/tourism area, protecting it from being lost to

suburban development (WAPC 2006). The Parliament of Western Australia is instrumental in

the way planning is carried out in the state as it has created a number of statutes as well as

statutory bodies that regulate the planning profession and land development.

28

The Minister that has the most direct control over planning is the Minister for Planning and

Infrastructure. The Minister is responsible for the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

The duties of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are,

‘Enriching the quality of life for all Western Australians by connecting and delivering

economic and social networks’ and to integrate land use and transport planning by

carrying out policy (Department of Planning and Infrastructure n.d. 2)

As established in the Planning and Development Act (2005) the State Administrative

Tribunal (SAT) is an important executive function for planning in Western Australia. Subject

to Part 14 of the Act, development applications and decisions can be reviewed in the State

Administrative Tribunal. The Minister can also call in any application, and if this occurs, the

decision of the Minister is final and cannot be appealed (s246). The State Government covers

every aspect of planning in the state and has the final decision on planning matters in most

cases.

Local Government

The next tier of government is local government. The population and territory size of local

governments vary. There are a total of 32 local governments in the Perth Metropolitan area

and more if the area is extended to include greater Perth (see above). Appendix 4 provides

details and a profile of each local government within our study. Local governments exist by

virtue of the State Government and have no protection under the Commonwealth Of Australia

Constitution Act 1900. Whilst they have an important role in planning, this exercised within

the boundaries of State government policy and statutory frameworks (Murphy 2007). An

example of the power of the state government over local government is when a previous

government passed the City Of Perth Restructuring Act 1993. This Act dissolved the City of

29

Perth LGA and appointed commissionaires in their place until the city boundaries were

reorganised creating the Town of Vincent, Town of Victoria Park, Town of Cambridge and a

much smaller City of Perth. However, even though local government is subordinate to the

state government in planning, devolution of power from centralised planning agency towards

local governments has increased. Local governments have increasingly asserted power over

planning decision making and even though state government has the power to overrule local

decisions, the politics involved may make this complicated (Hedgcock, 2003).

Local governments play an important role in town planning in Western Australia. The most

important thing that local governments do is to produce and apply a local planning scheme,

which must be reviewed every 5 years, as outlined by Part 5 of the Planning and

Development Act 2005. Any development in an area has to be approved by a local

government to make sure that it conforms to the local planning scheme. The decision of the

council may be appealed against to the State Administrative Tribunal. In relation to transport

planning, local government have responsibility for maintaining local roads (the State Main

Roads Agency and The WAPC have responsibility for primary roads within the metropolitan

area). As a rule local government do not have responsibility for public transport within the

metropolitan area, which is a function of the state Public Transit Authority (PTA) which sits

within the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s portfolio. The exception to this has been

in the provision of three ‘City Access Transit Schemes’ (CATS) where a free bus service is

operated by local government in conjunction with the PTA in Perth CBD, Fremantle and

Subiaco-UWA.

Regional Councils

Five Regional councils operate in the Perth Greater Metropolitan Area. These are councils

that have been formed by local government authorities in the same region to share

30

information, resources and take advantage of synergies. Part 3, Division 4, Section 3.61 of

the Local Government Act 1995 States that,

“Two or more local governments may, establish a regional local government to do

things, for the participants, for any purpose for which a local government can do

things under this Act or any other Act”

In this light regional councils have the ability to tackle transport issues that extend beyond

one local government authority. Regional councils are voluntary with some local

governments, such as Nedlands, not being a part of any Regional council. The South West

Regional Group is similar to a regional council, but formed in 1983 before the Local

Government Act 1995 which outlined rules for the operation of regional councils came into

affect. It exists outside the Local Government Act 1995.

Most regional councils deal only with waste management and, to a limited degree,

environmental initiatives. There is significant potential for the regional councils to have a role

in delivering more coordination and cooperation on regional issues, including transport.

Regional councils may develop regional transport strategies aimed at providing a transport

network that is highly efficient and promoting common interest outcomes for the council in

the regional body, drawing on the state governments Metropolitan Transport Strategy. These

regional transport strategies can enable securing more funding from the Federal Government,

although this is not a formal process. At the time the content analysis was undertaken, only

the South West Regional Group had an integrated transport strategy (2003). In December

2007, the East Metropolitan Regional Council finalised its Regional Integrated Transport

Strategy (December 2007).

31

Given the subordinate role of local government to state government, many local government

policies and strategies have their origins in state government legislation and plans. This

relationship is best seen as an inverse pyramid (Figure 3.2). Policy development is generally

from the top downwards with state government legislation having the most weight in its role

of providing overarching direction, Each level down becomes more and more specific in its

operational detail.

Figure 3.2 The relationship between the different State and Local Government

documents

Local Government

Policy

State Government Legislation

State Government Strategy

Local Government Strategy

32

An example of this inverse pyramid is the structure of land use planning documents and their

level within the scheme of planning in Western Australia (Figure 3.3). At the peak is the

most important planning and development document, the Planning and Development Act

2005.

Figure 3.3 Relationship between state and local government policies, strategies and

statutory planning documents.

Planning and Development Act 2005

State Planning Strategy

Metropolitan Region Scheme

State Planning Policy

Local Planning Strategy

Local Planning Scheme

Local Government Area

Local Planning Policies

33

4. Policy for Land use and transport integration in the Perth Metropolitan Region There are a large range of documents that relate to land use and transport produced by the

state government. Many of these documents give direction to local government documents

and policies, as has been outlined previously. To understand the how land use and transport

integration is incorporated in policy requires consideration of a range of documents produced

at the state level, as well as the documents produced by local governments.

Current planning policy, at the state level is comprised of a set of policies, strategy plans and

statutory instruments. Different elements of the policy framework operate at different levels,

ranging from the whole state (such as the State Planning Strategy), to the metropolitan region,

to particular places or sectors. There are also detailed operational policies applicable to

particular aspects of development, for example WAPC Development Control Policy 1.6,

Transport Oriented Development (January 2006), which is relevant to transport precincts.

Local governments also produce planning policies, though they sit within the framework of

state policy and are normally produced on an ad hoc basis. The most important planning

documents that local governments produce are local planning schemes and local planning

strategies (Curtis, 1999). Figure 4.1 shows the relationships between statutory and non

statutory instruments in the Western Australia Planning Policy Framework.

34

Figure 4.1 Western Australia Policy Framework and Statutory Instruments Key:

In broad terms, statutory documents are designed to give regulatory force to the visions

contained in strategic planning documents. The problem is that statutory controls, such as

zoning are blunt tools for the interpretation of complex ideas and goals – such as the

integration of land use and transport planning. Planning policy informs the interpretation of

statutory planning schemes (Stein, 2008)

State Government statutory policy documents

The Metropolitan Region Scheme provides overall direction for development in the Perth

metropolitan area. The scheme has statutory backing under the Part 4 of the Planning and

Development Act 2005. Local planning schemes must be consistent with the Metropolitan

Region Scheme (MRS) and where they are not consistent, the MRS prevails. The MRS also

Strategy Plans Eg. State Planning Strategy, Network City,

Strategic Policies

Eg. Metro Centres etc

Region Schemes

Regional / Sub-Regional Structure

Plans District

Structure Plans

Local Structure Plans

Local Planning Scheme & Strategy

Subdivision and Development control

policies

Local Govt. Policies

Statutory processes

Non-Statutory – but must have ‘due regard’ in preparing planning schemes and decisions on planning matters

Local Transport Strategies

35

identifies the major transport routes through the region and sets out where these routes are to

go in the future. As the MRS is map based, zoning land for urban, non-urban and public

purposes, it was not subject to content analysis in this research. It is, however important to

acknowledge it as of primary statutory importance to planning and development decisions.

Overall there were five State government statutory documents that were analysed using the

LUTI framework:

1) WAPC Development Control Policy 2.6 Residential Road Planning (June 1998). This

policy sets out the requirements for the design and planning of roads in residential

areas. It has a significant impact on nature of urban streets, their integration with the

urban fabric, and the types of transport modes that are enabled.

2) Development Control Policy 1.5 Bicycle Planning (July 1998). This policy focuses on

the planning considerations necessary to improving the safety and convenience of

cycling. It includes measure to enable integration of the needs to cyclists in new

subdivisions, as well as feature related to commuter cyclist routes and end of trip

facilities.

3) Liveable Neighbourhoods Edition 2 (2000). This document operates as a planning

design code, or development control policy for the assessment of structure plans and

subdivision applications toward the implementation of the State Planning Strategy,

which aims to guide the sustainable development of the Perth Metropolitan Region to

2029. The first edition of the policy was published in 1997. While this particular

version of the document was non-statutory, at the time of analysis a later version

(which incorporated the content of this version) was adopted as a statutory document.

For this reason this policy text is included in this category. This document is generally

36

relevant to LUTI. In particular, Element 2, the Movement Network contains several

provisions for the integration land use and transport planning.

4) Development Control Policy 1.6 Planning to Support Transit Use and Transport

Oriented Development (TOD) (January 2006). This policy “seeks to maximise the

benefits to the community of an effective and well used public transit system by

promoting planning and development outcomes that will support and sustain public

transport use, and which will achieve the more effective integration of land use and

public transport infrastructure” (p2). It is directly relevant to achieving land use and

transport integration, particularly in the vicinity of key transit nodes.

5) Statement of Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth Settlement (Feb 2006). This policy

“sets out the principles and considerations which apply to planning for urban growth

and settlement in Western Australia.” (p1065). It is central to framing the integration

of land use and transport, with one of its objectives being,

To promote the development of a sustainable and liveable neighbourhood

form which reduces energy, water and travel demand whilst ensuring safe

and convenient access to employment and services by all modes, provides

choice and affordability of housing and creates an identifiable sense of

place for each community (p1066)

Together, these five policies provide the statutory framework guiding the potential

achievement of land use and transport integration in the Perth Greater Metropolitan Region.

State strategic policy documents

Strategy documents do not tend to carry the same type of detail as non-statutory documents

and are focussed on setting the strategic framework within which development occur and by

which statutory instruments are interpreted. The preparation of schemes, and decisions on

37

planning matters must have ‘due regard’ to non-statutory planning policy (Curtis, 1999) and

some strategy documents are referenced in statutory policy, providing them legal status

(Stein, 2008). There were four core strategic documents at the state level relevant to land use

and transport integration that were subject to the content analysis:

1) The State Planning Strategy. The Strategy is published in two parts. Part 1 provides

an overview of the future direction for planning in Western Australia as a whole.

Some short-term priority actions have been identified in Part 1 to improve the way

planning is undertaken and decisions made. Part 2 provides a list of strategies and

actions for government to improve the environment, community, economy and

infrastructure. It also provides a range of strategies and actions for each of the 10

regions of the State (of which metropolitan Perth is one).

2) Network City. This sets out the regional planning strategy for the metropolitan Perth

and Peel regions until the year 2029. One of the key areas that it deals with is

transport. It places a heavy emphasis on the development of the metropolis around

public transport networks and in the need to improve walkability of local areas. This

strategy acts as a policy guide to both local governments (for development of their

own Local Planning Strategies) and other state government departments.

3) Perth Metropolitan Transport Strategy Proposes strategies for moving from a highly

car dependent transport system to one that is more sustainable based on other means

of transport. This strategy has no statutory weight but is seen as a guiding document

when framing policy and other strategies by both local Governments and government

departments.

4) Metroplan (1990) Metroplan was replaced by Network City as Perth Strategic

planning strategy in 2004. Metroplan envisaged Perth’s strategic development through

38

a hierarchy of retail centres ranging from strategic regional centres to neighbourhood

centres, with the assumption of car based access (Curtis and Scheurer, 2007). Many

current local planning schemes were developed under the strategic framework of

Metroplan, and it therefore has ongoing influence in the policy context for land use

and transport integration

It is important to note that there are other, albeit less relevant, strategic documents that are

relevant to the framework for land use and transport integration at the state level; time

constraints and a focus on analysis of those documents most influential in terms of decision

making means that documents such as these have not been analysed. These include

documents like: Bike Ahead: Bicycle Strategy for the 21st Century; Perth Bicycle Network

Plan; Travelsmart 10 year Plan; and the PTA corporate plan.

Local Government Policy

There are a wide range of local government documents that relate to land use and transport

both directly and indirectly. Some are required by State legislation, others are policies that are

used to guide the council and it officers. In this respect the weight to be accorded to each

document in decision making varies. A content analysis was undertaken on the local planning

schemes for each LGA and three additional types of document – local planning strategies,

local transport strategies and local bike plans. Although not all local governments had these

additional documents at the time of the analysis, they are important due to their direct role in

influencing planning decision making at the local level. Before a more focussed review of the

documents that were subject to content analysis in this research, a review of some of the other

potentially relevant local government documents is undertaken.

39

Although local government strategic (or corporate plans) were not analysed they are also

important to the context for land use and transport integration. Local governments are

required to produce a corporate or strategic plan under s5.56 of the Local Government Act

1995. However the provisions made are not directive – simply stating that,

(1) “A local government is to plan for the future of the district.

(2) A local government is to ensure that plans made under subsection (1) are in

accordance with any regulations made about planning for the future of the district.”

This is further defined in s.19C of The Local Government (Administration) regulations 1996,

including the requirement for these documents to set out the council’s values and objectives

for a minimum of two years ahead and councils are required to pay due regard to their

corporate or strategic plan in the development of their annual budget. They are linked to the

development of a Plan of Principle Activities, which sets out all the proposed activities to be

undertaken in a four to five year cycle, as a statutory requirement under the Local

Government Act (1995) There is no legislative backing, or necessity to focus on areas

relevant to land use and transport integration within these documents and therefore they are

not of direct relevance to our research on LUTI. Planning Schemes, Planning Strategies,

Transport Strategies and Bicycle Plans are by their nature, directly relevant to LUTI.

However, it is possible for a strategic or corporate plan to guide planning and development

decisions, and the integration of land use and transport if these considerations are drawn into

the strategic/corporate planning process. For example, the Gosnells Strategic Plan 2007-2010

(City of Gosnells, 2007) includes a strategy to work with State government and surrounding

local governments in the development of an integrated transport strategy, and a strategy for

suburb regeneration and town centre revitalisation.

40

Local governments usually have their own policy manual, which is an organised group of

policies to guide actions, including an operations policy manual and a planning policy

manual. The operations policy manual is for the day to day running of the council and has

only minor impacts on transport matters. The planning policy manual is directly linked to the

local planning scheme and serves as a guide on land use planning decisions; it is of interest to

transport matters. The planning policy manual tends to evolve in response to the need to

manage issues that are not covered in the town planning scheme, and can therefore cover a

diverse range of issues, dependent on the local government. The scheme may be amended to

include measures from the policy manual at a later date. Neither of the two policy manuals is

a statutory document, as such they are unlikely to be accorded much weight in a development

decision.

Additionally, different local government have different non-statutory strategies that may

influence land use and transport integrations indirectly. These include: environmental

strategies; sustainability plans; access plans; and safety plans, all of which may have

measures relevant to the integration of land use and transport, though may have less of an

impact on the actual practice of planning in local governments.

Local Planning Schemes

The local planning scheme is the most powerful document that a council can produce as it is

the statutory basis of all land use planning and development in the council’s jurisdiction.

Local planning schemes must sit within the broad framework set by the Metropolitan Region

Scheme, but provide a much more detailed plan for each LGA. Local schemes set out

residential densities, plot ratios, where and what type of development can occur. They have a

significant impact on the capacity to achieve integrated transport and land use. The local

41

planning scheme goes through a period of public consultation as well as an examination by

the WAPC before the final document goes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for

final approval. The importance of local planning schemes to land use transport integration is

high as they determine the nature of development and land use in an area. Councils are

required to produce a local planning scheme and a local planning strategy in accordance with

s.5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. All of the LGA’s in the Greater Perth

Metropolitan Region have a local planning scheme, but not all have drafted a local planning

strategy yet.

Local Planning Strategies

These are strategies that set out the long term land use and development aims of the council.

They are prepared by the council and used as the guiding document informing the content of

the Local Planning Scheme. The Local Planning Strategy is the goal for the future and the

Local Planning Scheme is the tool to achieve the goal. The importance of Local Planning

Strategy to land use transport integration is high as it sets out the future direction of

development. At the time of the content analysis, only seven LGA’s in the Greater Perth

Metropolitan Region had drafted a local planning strategy. These were: Armadale;

Bassendean; Cockburn; Cottesloe; East Fremantle; Fremantle; Kwinana.

Local Transport Strategies and Bicycle Plans

Two types of local transport documents were subject to the LUTI content analysis. Local

Transport Strategies are non-statutory documents, and there is no requirement for a LG to

have one. Where they are present, local transport strategies draw on and are consistent with

the State Government Metropolitan Transport Strategy. At the time of analysis, there were

five local governments with local transport strategies: Fremantle, Nedlands, Rockingham,

South Perth and Subiaco. As an example, the intention of the Rockingham Integrated

42

Transport Plan (Worley Parsons, 2007) is to identify a range of strategies to assist in the

management of urban growth and quality of life. These strategies include a focus in the areas

of: process and policy; infrastructure and planning; and travel demand management,

empowerment and lobbying.

Like Transport Strategies, Local Bicycle Plans are not required for local governments, but are

a prerequisite for receiving state government funding for local bicycle facilities. They are

designed to enable the coordination and integration of bicycle infrastructure and networks in

local government areas. Support for their development is offered by Bikewest, which is

located in the State Department of Transport (Bikewest 2008). At the time the LUTI content

analysis was undertaken four local governments had bicycle plans: Canning, Fremantle,

Melville and Rockingham. As an example, the Fremantle bicycle plan (Transplan Pty Ltd,

2003) envisages a bike friendly city where the safety and legitimacy of cycling as a form of

transport is recognised and supported on all roads, cost effective infrastructure is provided,

and the role in health and welfare is supported.

43

5. Content Analysis results The suite of state and local government policy documents most relevant to integrating

transport and land use planning were analysed using the methodology discussed in part 2 of

this working paper. This section presents the results for the content analysis of policy

documents against the LUTI criteria (shown in Table 1). The LUTI principles are divided

into three main categories, with subcategories as follows:

LUTI PRINCIPLES

Access

• The Network

• Activity Function

• Traffic Management

• Service

Land Use

• Land use configuration

• Density/intensity

• Proximity

• Parking

People Places

• Scale and design

• Amenity

The results discuss particular criteria for each of the three categories, and are also references

to the sub categories under each main category that are listed above.

The focus of the results is to provide a comparative horizontal analysis across the suite of

local government documents, and the suite of state government documents and a vertical

44

analysis looking at the degree of policy integration between state and local government.

Where there are interesting findings in relation to particular documents, these are also

discussed. State and local government documents are divided into two categories, statutory

and non- statutory.

Overview

To summarise the representation of LUTI criteria in state and local policy documents, the

documents were divided into 3 types: state statutory documents, state non statutory

documents and local planning schemes. Local planning strategies, local transport strategies

and local bike plans have not been included in this overview, as only a few local governments

have them. They are discussed in the detailed analysis that follows.

For each of these document types, Table 2 summarises the representation of the LUTI Access

criteria; Table 3 summarises representation of the LUTI Land Use criteria; and Table 4

summarises representation of the LUTI People Places criteria. These tables show: a) the

percentage of each type of document that positively represents each LUTI criterion and b) the

highest rating, or level of support provided, in each type of document. For example, if the

highest coding that any local planning scheme received for a criterion was 3, then this is what

the table reflects – even though other local planning schemes may have not reflected, or even

worked against this criteria. These finer details emerge in the more comprehensive analysis

that follows. By representing the highest coding, or level of support provided in each type of

document alongside the percentage data, an indication of both the current best potential

strength and the overall breadth of support for each LUTI criteria are provided.

45

In considering analysis of the state government documents, it is important to remember that

the suite of documents here needs to be considered together as ‘state policy’ for LUTI.

Therefore the percentage of statutory and non-statutory state documents representing a

particular criterion is only a partial representation of how well the criteria are represented at

the state level. Some documents, such as DC2.6 Residential Road Planning have a very

specific purpose, and therefore, would not necessarily be expected to cover, for example, the

operational aspects of public transport. Others, such as the State Planning Strategy are very

strategic, and would not be expected, for example, to cover the intricacies of residential road

design. With this in mind, the analysis does provide an overview of the degree of horizontal

integration of LUTI principles across state government policy documents.

The percentage of local government planning schemes representing each criteria is perhaps

more interesting in demonstrating the horizontal variation across local planning schemes. In

1999, Town Planning Amendment Regulations were gazetted, requiring local zoning schemes

to comply with a Model Scheme Text. The aims of this amendment included the need to

improve consistency and to introduce a greater strategic component to local schemes

(WAPC, 1999). Nonetheless, there are significant differences across schemes in terms of

how well and in which areas the LUTI criteria are supported. Further, several local planning

schemes were drafted prior to the introduction of the model scheme text. Findings are

summarised for Access, Land Use and People Places following each table.

46

Access

A brief visual analysis of Table 2 shows that best overall integration across state statutory and

non statutory documents, and local government planning schemes1

• Activity Function, A6 - High quality pedestrian experience, arterial roads have safe

pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes; and

is achieved for LUTI

access criteria in the areas of:

• Traffic Management, A10 – Effective traffic management

• Service, A20 - Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate

capacity.

On the positive, this reflects strength in its focus on non-motorised transport. However, it also

reflects a lack of supportive details integrated between state and local government to enable

integration across transport modes, such as traffic management, or the detailed operational

aspects required for a good public transport. Inevitably these other factors will impact on the

actual achievement of a high quality pedestrian experience, and a cycle friendly environment

that connects cyclists to public transport.

1 Defined as a minimum of 20% in each type of document (statutory and non statutory state and local government schemes)

47

Table 2 Summary of representation of LUTI Access criteria

LUTI CRITERION State Statutory documents

State non-statutory documents

Local planning schemes

ACCESS %with pos reference

Highest rating

%with pos reference

Highest Rating

%with pos reference

Highest rating

1 The network - Interconnectedness to urban system

40% 3 75% 2 9% 2

2 The network - Balance of access - through-travel and travel to

40% 2 50% 3 6% 2

3 The network - Choice of transport options in close proximity

20% 1 75% 3 53% 3

4 Activity Function - Highly connected street network focussed on access to centres and transit stops

60% 3 50% 2 13% 2

5 Activity Function - Well designed walkable catchments

40% 3 50% 2 16% 3

6 Activity Function - High quality pedestrian experience, arterial roads have safe pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes

60% 3 75% 2 38% 3

7 Traffic Management - Lower traffic speeds, 60% 3 25% 2 0 -1 8 Traffic Management - Moderate traffic volumes,

40% 2 25% 2 6% 1

9 Traffic Management - Narrower streets 20% 1 0 - 0 -1 10 Traffic Management - Effective traffic management

20% 2 75% 2 81% 3

11 Traffic Management - pedestrian priority 20% 2 50% 1 13% 2 12 Service - Integrated transport - easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these mode

80% 3 75% 2 19% 1

13 Service - In operational terms – timetabling;, , efficient public transport service to many destinations

0 - 25% 1 3% 1

14 Service - In operational terms – easy to navigate system,

20% 2 50% 2 0 -

15 Service – In operational terms – high frequency

0 - 50% 2 0 -

16 Service -In operational terms – reliable 0 - 25% 1 0 - 17 Service - In operational terms – efficient public transport service to many destinations

20% 1 50% 3 0 -

18 Service - Safe, secure, convenient and comfortable stations, stops and interchanges

60% 2 25% 3 3% 1

19 Service - Accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc

20% 2 75% 3 44% 3

20 Service - Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity

80% 3 75% 3 41% 3

21 Service - Good business servicing opportunities

20% 3 75% 1 3% 2

% positive rating 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Highest rating 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

48

Overall, the access criteria are better integrated across the state government documents and

their representation in local planning schemes is inconsistent. Whilst many of the access

criteria were covered in local planning schemes as a whole, for the most part, only a small

proportion of the schemes were supportive of any particular criteria. There significant gaps in

coverage of access criteria in both state and local documents around the operational aspects

of public transport service and this demonstrates a gap in the capacity to deliver LUTI.

Land Use

A brief visual analysis of Table 3 shows that best integration2

• Land use configuration:

across state statutory and non

statutory documents and local government planning schemes is achieved for land use criteria

in the areas of:

o LU 1 - Land use integrated with integrated transport;

o LU 2 - A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport

and land use; and

o LU 3 - Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts.

• Density/Intensity, LU9 - Highest residential density in close proximity to activities.

There were fewer pronounced gaps in coverage across the suite of documents for land use

criteria than there were for access criteria. The most notable gap to mention is: LU5, Land

use configuration - High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in

close proximity of transit stop, which is absent from state government documents, and

covered only in a few local planning schemes. Parking criteria, LU 13-18 featured more

prominently in local planning schemes that in state government documents. However,

2 Defined as a minimum of 20% in each type of document (statutory and non statutory state and local government schemes)

49

overall, coverage of land use criteria, in terms of strength and breadth, is slightly stronger in

the suite of state government documents than in the local planning schemes.

The results in the sub category of land use configuration, demonstrate a broader trend where

the highest degree of vertical integration (state to local) is associated with the LUTI criteria

that contain less specific detail for planning. The first three criteria under land use

configuration: LU1 - land use integrated with integrated transport; LU2 - A robust urban form

– can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use, and LU3 - greater diversity,

vibrant mix of land uses within precincts more open to interpretation that the other land use

criteria. These are: LU4 – Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within buildings. LU5 –

High pedestrian trip generating uses as ground floor, housing above in close proximity of

transit stop; LU6 – Buildings orientated to station/streets/paths; LU7 – active ground floor

uses for surveillance; LU8 – Frontage development human scale.

50

Table 3 Summary of representation of LUTI land use criteria

LUTI CRITERION State Statutory documents

State non-statutory documents

Local planning schemes

LAND USE %with pos reference

Highest rating

%with pos reference

Highest Rating

%with pos reference

Highest rating

1. Land use configuration - Land use integrated with integrated transport

60% 3 100% 3 69% 2

2. Land use configuration - A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use.

60% 3 50% 2 34% 2

3. Land use configuration - Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts

60% 3 75% 3 53% 3

4. Land use configuration - Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses and within buildings

20% 1 25% 3 28% 3

5. Land use configuration - High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop;

0 - 0 - 22% 2

6. Land use configuration - Buildings oriented to station/streets/paths;

20% 3 25% - 9% 2

7. Land use configuration - Active ground floor uses for surveillance;

20% 3 25% 1 3% 1

8. Land use configuration - Frontage development – human scale.

20% 3 25% - 3% 1

9.Density/Intensity - Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types);

80% 3 75% 2 53% 3

10. Density/Intensity - Medium to high residential densities;

60% 2 25% 2 25% 3

11. Proximity - Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity (walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop;

20% 3 100% 3 25% 2

12. Proximity - More intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses (measured by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities.

20% 2 75% 3 22% 1

13. Parking - Car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromised;

0 - 50% 1 63% 3

14. Parking - Parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites;

20% 2 25% 1 41% 3

15. Parking - Car parking behind buildings not fronting street

20% 3 0 - 9% 3

16. Parking - Street parking 40% 2 0 - 22% 3 17. Parking -Short-term parking but limited commuter parking;

20% 1 25% 1 13% 2

18. Parking - Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access.

20% 2 0 - 50% 3

% positive rating 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Highest rating 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

51

Table 4 Summary of representation of LUTI People Place Criteria LUTI CRITERION State

Statutory documents

State non-statutory documents

Local planning schemes

PEOPLE PLACES %with pos reference

Highest rating

%with pos reference

Highest Rating

%with pos reference

Highest rating

1. Scale and Design - Human scale – less demand for 70kph scale advertising, more sense that cars are not the priority mode;

60% 3 0 - 50% 3

2. Scale and Design - Integration of character and scale of development within precinct;

40% 3 75% 2 94% 3

3. Scale and Design - Respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment);

20% 1 50% 3 100% 3

4. Scale and Design - Diversity of architectural styles;

0 - 0 - 16% 3

5. Scale and Design - Legible design – is easily understood for residents and visitors.

60% 3 50% 1 0 -

6. Amenity - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right.

60% 3 75% 2 91% 3

7. Amenity - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly.

40% 2 25% 1 88% 3

8. Amenity - Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art.

0 - 50% 3 91% 3

9. Amenity - More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport.

0 - 0 - 9% 3

10. Amenity - Busy places. 20% 1 0 1 16% 1

% positive rating 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Highest rating 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

People Places

A brief visual analysis shows that best integration3

• PP2, Scale and Design - Integration of character and scale of development within

precinct;

across state statutory and non-statutory

documents and local government planning schemes is achieved for LUTI people places

criteria in the areas of:

3 Defined as a minimum of 20% in each type of document (statutory and non statutory state and local government schemes)

52

• PP6, Amenity - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in

its own right.

There are significant gaps of coverage for people places criteria, particular at the state

government level. Overall, there is much better coverage of the people places criteria in local

planning schemes.

Detailed results

This section provides detailed results for the LUTI content analysis across state and local

government documents. The results are provided separately for each LUTI category, access,

land use and people places. The results begin with a more detailed overview of the vertical

integration between state and local documents. For the purpose of this content analysis, it is

suggested that the policy framework is generally supportive of a particular LUTI criteria if it

is covered in statutory and non-statutory state documents and local planning schemes, which

are the only relevant document that is present in all Perth local government areas. What

follows is a detailed analysis of state government documents, including horizontal integration

across them and a review of coverage in local planning schemes as well as local planning

strategies, transport strategies and bike plans, where they are available is provided. See

Appendix 4 Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by positive, negative

or mixed reference to LUTI Criteria and Appendix 5 Summary of Perth state and local policy

document analysis by highest rating score for each LUTI criterion for full tables of data upon

which this analysis is based.

53

Access criteria

Overall, the results across state and local government for access reflect less vertical

integration between documents than for the LUTI land use and people places criteria. This is

significantly due to the finding that although the state statutory and non statutory documents

provide support to most of the access criteria, coverage in local planning schemes is patchy.

When compared, the state documents are far more likely to support or strongly support the

LUTI access criteria. Where local planning schemes do reflect the LUTI access criteria, these

criteria are, for the most part only weakly satisfied. As discussed in part 3 of this working

paper a significant part of the context for this finding is that local government has limited

responsibility for public transport, and only has responsibility for local roads. Primary

distributors, those roads that connect major destinations, are the responsibility of the state

government (Main Roads, nd).

The prominent access criteria, in terms of overall policy support at a state and local level is in

the area of traffic management, A10 - effective traffic management. This is supported at the

state level in statutory and non-statutory documents and by the majority of local planning

schemes4. The only other Access criteria that is supported at the statutory and non statutory

level in state policy, and in more than half of the local planning schemes5 is in the sub-

category of The Network, A3 - choice of transport options in close proximity. In the

subcategory of service, A19 - Public Transport Service, Accessible by people with

disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc;6 and A20 Public Transport Service,

Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity7

4 Supported by 26 of 32 local planning schemes

are also

comparatively well reflected through state policy and local planning schemes, however it is

5 Supported by 17 of 32 local planning schemes 6 Supported by 14 of 32 local planning schemes 7 Supported by 13 of 32 local planning schemes

54

important to note that less than half of the local planning schemes are directly supportive of

these two criteria. A noticeable gap in coverage of the access criteria appears in the category

of service, between A13 and A17,8

both in State statutory policy and local planning schemes.

These are the access criteria that deal with the operational aspects of a good public transport

system. As it has already been noted, local government has no responsibilities for public

transport provision. This represents a significant problem in the capacity of current policy at

the state and local level to support the detailed operational requirements of a good public

transport system. In the area of traffic management, A9 - narrower streets is another gap

through state and local documents.

State Government Documents

Of the State Government documents that were analysed, the Metropolitan Transport Strategy

provides the greatest breadth of support across access criteria, with only A9, Narrower

Streets not supported by this policy. WAPC DC 2.6, Residential Road Planning is the only

state document that did provide some policy support to A9, Narrower streets. Network City

and the Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Codes also demonstrate significant breadth of

coverage in access (see Table 5).

In terms of strength of coverage the Metropolitan Transport Strategy, The Liveable

Neighbourhoods Design Codes and WAPC 1.5 Jan 06 Transport Oriented Development

included several statements that strongly satisfy or satisfy the LUTI Access criterion. These

latter two documents, which include significant focus on land use (see analysis further on

8 A13, In operational terms – timetabling; efficient public transport service to many destinations; A14 In operational terms – easy to navigate system; A15, In operational terms – high frequency. A16 In operational terms – reliable, A17 In operational terms – efficient public transport service to many destinations

55

under land use), are a positive demonstration of the integration of land use and transport

policy (see Table 6).

Table 5 State Government Documents – Access Criteria Summary

State Policy Documents – Strategic A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

State Planning Strategy 1

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Network City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MetroPlan 1990 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

State Policy Documents – Statutory

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Liveable Neighbourhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning 3 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

The access criteria that most frequently received a positive mention in State documents were:

• Activity Function, A6 - a high quality pedestrian experience including arterial roads

that have pedestrian facilities and on-road cycle lanes;

• Service;

o A12 - Public Transport Service, Integrated transport - easily accessible by all

modes and interchange between these modes; and

o A20, Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate

capacity.

56

Table 6 State Government Documents – Access Criteria Ratings

State Policy Documents - Strategic

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

State Planning Strategy 2

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1

Network City 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

MetroPlan 1990 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1

State Policy Documents - Statutory

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Liveable Neighbourhoods 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 2 2 2 2

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning 2 1 2 3

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 3 3 3 3 3 2

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Particular strengths are also identifiable in some state documents. Both WAPC DC 1.6:

Transport Oriented Development and The Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Codes strongly

support all LUTI Access criteria in the area of Activity function (A4-6). As an overall view, it

is in the sub-category of activity function that LUTI access criteria receive both the most and

the strongest coverage.

Most of the access criteria received a positive mention somewhere in both statutory and non-

statutory documents. However there were some significant gaps. A13-A17 are virtually non-

existent in State Statutory documents. These criteria deal with the detailed operational

aspects9

9 A13 timetabling; A14 easy to navigate system, A15 High frequency, A16 reliable, A17 efficient public transport service to many destinations.

of a good public transport services. These same operational aspects of public

transport also are seen for the most part to only be weakly supported where they do occur in

57

state government documents. Only one of the LUTI criteria in this set, A17, efficient public

transport service to many destinations, is strongly supported and only in one document, the

Perth Metropolitan Transport Strategy.

Local Government

Support for access criteria in local planning schemes was patchy, with significant gaps.

Where LUTI Access criteria were covered in local planning schemes, the content analysis

shows that for the most part, they only weakly satisfy the LUTI criterion (see Table 7 and

Table 9). Compared to the local planning schemes, the non-Statutory Local Government

Transport and Planning strategies, generally showed greater breadth and strength in satisfying

the LUTI criteria (see Table 8 and Table 11). However, at the time of the content analysis,

only 7 of 32 Local governments had local planning strategies, and 5 of 32 had local transport

strategies. 4 local governments had local bike plans (see Table 8).

58

Table 7 Local Planning Schemes – Access Criteria Summary Local Planning Schemes

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1

Bayswater 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Belmont 1 1 2 1 1

Cambridge 1 1 2 1

Canning 1 1 1

Claremont 2 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1

Gosnells 1 1 1 1

Joondalup 1 1

Kalamunda 1 1 1

Kwinana 1

Mandurah 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1

Melville 1 1 1

Mosman Park 2 1 1

Mundaring 1 1 1 2 1 1

Murray 1 1

Nedlands 1 2 1

Peppermint Grove 1

Perth 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 1 1 1 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1

Stirling 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1

Swan 1 1 1 1 1

Victoria Park

Vincent 2

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

59

Table 8 Non Statutory Local Government Documents – Access Criteria Summary Local Planning Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

Bassendean 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kwinana 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

Local Transport Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nedlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Local Bike Plans

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Canning 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1

Melville 1 1

Rockingham 1 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

Local Planning Schemes

A10, Effective Traffic Management, was the only access criterion that was consistently

supported in local planning schemes10. With a few exceptions11, however the content analysis

reflected that this criteria was only weakly supported (Table 9). Close to half of the local

planning schemes were supportive of: A3, The Network, Choice of transport options in close

proximity12

10 28 of 32 local planning schemes

; A19, public transport service, public transport that is accessible by people with

11 Kalamunda was strongly supportive, Cambridge and Canning, supportive 12 17 of 32 local governments with positive mention, only 1, Mosman Park, strongly supportive, and one, Belmont supportive

60

disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc13; and A 20, service, cycle friendly,

secure cycle storage, connective networks of adequate capacity14. Beyond these criteria,

positive mention of the LUTI access criteria in Local planning schemes was patchy, and

limited to a few local governments only. Six access criteria were not mentioned positively in

any local planning scheme.15 Similar to State Statutory documents, these criteria were around

the operational aspects of good public transport services (A14-A18) and for A7, lower traffic

speeds and A9, narrower streets. While the majority of criteria referring to the operational

aspects of a good public transport system were simply absent, there were schemes that were

unsupportive of lower traffic speeds16 and narrower streets17

.

This reiterates a point made in the overview. There is support provided to non motorised

modes of transport, and to public transport, albeit in general terms. However, lack of breadth

in coverage of the access criteria means that the many issues – such as those related to traffic

management and public transport service that are interrelated with the use of non motorised

transport are not - means that overall, the practical achievement of these LUTI principles will

be constrained.

Overall, 7 of 21 access criteria were not mentioned positively at all in local planning

schemes. Beyond these, what is particularly interesting is that whilst coverage was patchy,

most of the criteria were covered in at least a few schemes. This suggests that local planning

schemes can be supportive of many of the access criteria, even though for the most part they

13 14 local government with an positive mention, 4 strongly supportive 14 13 local governments with a positive mention, 3 strongly supportive, and 5 supportive 15 A14-A18 16 10 of 32 local planning schemes 17 2 of 32 local planning schemes

61

are not. So while local planning schemes may be a blunt tool for the implementation of the

access elements of land use and transport, they can, and some do, do a better job.

Table 9 Local Planning Schemes – Access Criteria Ratings

Local Planning Schemes A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Armadale 1 3 1 1 1 3

Bassendean 1 1 1 2

Bayswater 2 2 -2 -1 1 1 3 3

Belmont 2 1 -2 2 1

Cambridge 1 1 -2 1

Canning 2 3 2

Claremont -3 1 2 3

Cockburn 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 2

Gosnells 1 1 3 2

Joondalup 1 1

Kalamunda 1 2 3

Kwinana 1

Mandurah 1 1 1 1 2 -1 -3 1 1

Melville 3 1 3

Mosman Park -1 1 1

Mundaring 1 1 1 -1 1 1

Murray 1 1

Nedlands 1 -1 1

Peppermint Grove 1

Perth 2 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 2 2 1 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 1

South Perth 1 1 2

Stirling 1 1 3 -1 -1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1

Swan 1 1 1 1 1

Victoria Park

Vincent -1

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 2

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

62

It is difficult to identify notable local planning schemes in terms of their support of the access

criteria. However Mandurah (dated 1999) covers A4-6, all the Access – Activity function

criteria, and positively mentions 7 of the 21 access criteria overall. This is the highest breadth

of coverage of all local governments. There are several local planning schemes where access

criteria are unsupported, hardly mentioned, or not mentioned at all. The Town of Vincent

(dated 1998) was only coded once as weakly working against A7, Lower traffic speeds. No

LUTI access criteria were coded for the Victoria Park local planning scheme (dated 1998).

The Cottesloe and Peppermint Grove Schemes (dated 1988 and 1996 respectively) were

weakly supportive of only one access criteria A12, Integrated transport - easily accessible by

all modes and interchange between these mode. Joondalup (dated 2000) was only weakly

supportive of A3 – Choice of transport options in close proximity, and A11 – Pedestrian

priority.

Non Statutory Local government documents

Of all local government documents reviewed, local transport strategies showed the best

coverage of access criteria, though even in these there was a similar gap around some of the

operational aspects of public transport (Table 10).18 Importantly, however, the Transport

Strategy for South Perth covered all criteria in the subcategory of service; the Fremantle and

Subiaco transport strategies covers all except one traffic management criteria;19

Table

and Subiaco

transport strategy covers all the activity function criteria. The local planning strategies also

show stronger support for access criteria than local government planning schemes – many of

the access criteria are supported, or strongly supported, whereas where local planning

schemes provide support to the access criteria, they are for the most part only weakly

supportive (see 7 and Table 9).

18 In particular, A14 easy to navigate system, A15 High frequency, A16 reliable 19 In both instances, A9, Narrower streets

63

Local planning strategies, as a whole, also demonstrated better coverage of access criteria.

A10, Effective traffic management was universally covered in local planning strategies. Only

one strategy did not refer to A1, Interconnectedness to the urban system. Similar gaps

occurred here to those in the state documents and in the local planning schemes, in the areas

of traffic management (A7-A9) and service (A13-A19).

Table 10 Non Statutory Local Government Documents – Access Criteria Ratings Local Planning

Strategies A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Armadale 2 1 1 1 2 2 -1 2 0

Bassendean 1 1 1

Cockburn 2 1 1 2 2 2

Cottesloe 1 1 -1 -1 1 2 1 1 1

East Fremantle 2 1 2 2

Fremantle 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1

Kwinana 1 2 1 2 1 -1 1 2 2 1 1 2

Local Transport

Strategies A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Fremantle 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3

Nedlands 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1

Rockingham 2 1 -1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 2

South Perth 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 1

Subiaco 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

Local Bike Plans

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Canning 3 2 3 2

Fremantle 3 2 1 3

Melville 3 2

Rockingham 2 1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Notable documents in terms of coverage of particular sets of access criteria were:

64

• Fremantle, which covers all Network and Activity function criteria and all except one

traffic management criteria20

• Kwinana, which covers all network criteria and misses only one each for activity

function

;

21

For those local governments that had local planning strategies, local transport strategies and

local bike plans, a comparison of these non-statutory documents was made with the relevant

schemes. The comparison between local planning strategies and local planning schemes is

particularly interesting, as local planning strategies are designed to inform the development

of local planning schemes as well as having a supplementary role in guiding decisions made

through the scheme.

and traffic management. Interestingly, both of the missing criteria refer to

pedestrian amenity.

Table 11 compares local planning strategies and local planning schemes

for those local governments that had them. It is clear from a visual analysis that there is little

correlation in the way that LUTI access criteria are dealt with in planning strategies, and

planning schemes in local governments. Similarly, there is no coherent link between the

schemes and the local transport strategies or the bike plans in terms of their support for access

criteria.

20 A8 Moderate traffic volumes 21 For activity function, A6 High quality pedestrian experience and for traffic management, A11, pedestrian priority

65

Table 11 Access – comparison of local planning strategies with local planning schemes

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Armadale strategy 2 1 1 1 2 2 -1 2 0

Armadale scheme 1 3 1 1 1 3

Bassendean strategy 1 1 1

Bassendean scheme 1 1 1 2

Cockburn strategy 2 1 1 2 2 2

Cockburn scheme 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe strategy 1 1 -1 -1 1 2 1 1 1

Cottesloe scheme 1

East Fremantle strategy 2 1 2 2

East Fremantle scheme 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle strategy 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1

Fremantle scheme 1 1 1 1 1 2

Kwinana strategy 1 2 1 2 1 -1 1 2 2 1 1 2

Kwinana scheme 1

Table 102 Access – comparison of local transport strategies and local planning schemes

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Fremantle Strategy 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3

Fremantle Scheme 1 1 1 1 1 2

Nedlands Strategy 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1

Nedlands Scheme 1 -1 1

Rockingham Strategy 2 1 -1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 2

Rockingham Scheme 1 1 2 2 1 1

South Perth Strategy 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 1

South Perth Scheme 1 1 2

Subiaco Strategy 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

Subiaco Scheme 1 1 1 1

66

Table 13 Access – Comparison of local bike plans and planning schemes A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21

Canning Plan 3 2 3 2

Canning Scheme 2 3 2

Fremantle Plan 3 2 1 3

Fremantle Scheme 1 1 1 1 1 2

Melville Plan 3 2

Melville Scheme 3 1 3

Rockingham Plan 2 1

Rockingham Scheme 1 1 2 2 1 1

There are a few different ways to view these findings. Perhaps as the strategy documents are

more likely to be supportive of more LUTI access criteria, through a supplementary role, they

lead to better overall support at the local government level. This is an important consideration

given the limitations in the capacity of local planning schemes to support the LUTI access

criteria. Another interpretation, which is particularly relevant to the analysis across local

planning schemes and local planning strategies, is that there is no real integration between

these documents, particularly in terms of access when perhaps there should be. These

questions need to be followed up with further research. The links between strategies and the

interpretation of schemes, including how development decisions are made is a grey area.

Land Use

It was much easier to trace the LUTI land-use criteria through state and local documents than

it was for the access criteria. Many more are represented across all types of documents. The

links are strongest in:

• Land use configuration;

o LU1 - land use configuration, land use integrated with integrated transport;

o LU2 a robust urban form – can adjust to changes in demand for transport and

land use

67

• Density/intensity, LU9 - density/intensity, highest residential density in close

proximity to activities.

These criteria are present in 3 or more of the state statutory documents, 3 or more of the state

and non-statutory documents, and positively supported by more than half of the local

planning schemes. When compared, state government documents and local non-statutory

documents are more likely to be strongly supportive, or supportive, of land use criteria and

less likely to have policy statements that work against them, or have a mix of supportive and

unsupportive statements. Local planning schemes are less supportive of the LUTI land use

criteria – they tend to cover less breadth, and are more frequently only weakly supportive.

There are clear strengths and weaknesses in both state and local government documents. In

particular, the local government schemes are far more likely to cover parking criteria than the

state government documents.

Of 18 land use criteria there are only three that cannot be traced through state statutory and

non statutory documents and at least some local planning schemes. In the sub category of

land use configuration, LU5 - land use configuration, high pedestrian trip generating uses at

ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop is not present at all in state

documents, but supported by 7 local planning schemes. LU7 - active ground floor uses for

surveillance receives support in state statutory and non-statutory documents, but the

Wanneroo local planning scheme was the only scheme supportive of this criterion. In the sub

category of parking, LU 15, car parking behind buildings not fronting street, LU16, Street

Parking and LU18 Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of

town with good car access were only supported at the state level in statutory documents, but

received support in three and seven and sixteen local planning schemes respectively.

68

Overall far fewer complete gaps in coverage through from state to local level can be

identified in land use compared to access criteria. What is interesting about this, particularly

in the local planning schemes, is to consider why some LUTI criteria, that are represented at

the state level; such as LU 10, density/intensity, medium to high residential densities; flow

through to many local government planning schemes, and others, such as LU 12, proximity,

more intensive/high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses within walking

distance of transport facilities, to only a few.

State Government Documents

The criteria that most commonly receive a positive mention in state documents overall are:

• LU1, Land Use Configuration, Land Use integrated with Integrated transport

• LU3, Land Use Configuration, A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in

demand for transport and land use.

• LU9, Density/Intensity, Highest residential density in close proximity to activities

(but ensure includes family housing types); and

• LU11, Proximity, Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in

close proximity (walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus

stop (see Table 15).

69

Table 14 State government documents – land use criteria summary State Policy Documents - Strategic

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

State Planning Strategy 1 1 1

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Network City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MetroPlan 1990 1 1 3 1 1 1 2

State Policy Documents - Statutory

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Liveable Neighbourhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 3 1 1 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

The state documents that show the greatest breadth of coverage of Land use criteria are the

Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Codes22, Network City Community Planning Strategy23

,

and WAPC DC 1.6. While they each cover well over half of the land use criteria, none

achieves full representation. These documents also showed the highest level of support to the

LUTI land use criteria (see 4).

The stand out document in terms of its level of support for particular land use criteria was

WAPC DC 1.6 Transport Oriented Development. This document was coded as strongly

supportive of the majority of the criteria in the land use configuration sub category, strongly

supportive or supportive of the density/intensity criteria and strongly supportive of one of two

proximity criteria. However it is important to note that this particular policy is primarily

22 10 of 18 supported 23 13 of 18 supported

70

relevant to areas defined as transport precincts24

Table 115 State Government Documents – Land use criteria ratings

and not the Perth Metropolitan Region as a

whole.

State Policy Documents - Strategic L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

State Planning Strategy 2 1 2

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 1

Network City 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

MetroPlan 1990 1 2 2 2 1 1 -1

State Policy Documents - Statutory

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Liveable Neighbourhoods 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 2 1 1 2 1 2 2

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 1 1 1 1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Most of the land-use criteria were reflected at least once in both statutory and non-statutory

state documents, however four were not:

• LU5, Land Use Configuration, High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor,

housing above in close proximity of transit stop as not reflected positively at all in state

documents;

• Three of the parking related criteria: LU 15, car parking behind buildings not fronting

street; LU 16, parking, street parking; and LU 18, parking, Car-based retailing (drive-

24 Defined as Those areas that are: “about 10-15 minutes walking time, or an 800 m distance, for rail stations, transit interchanges or major bus transfer stations or terminals; and about 5-7 minutes walking time, or; 400 m, for bus stops located on bus routes with multiple bus services that are high frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak periods” (p3).

71

thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access were only

mentioned positively in statutory documents.

There are there two notable areas where there is comparatively lower coverage of the LUTI

criteria at the state level. These are: between LU4 and 825, which focus on some of the more

specific details of relationship between activities in buildings, and between buildings and the

street; and LU14-1826

, which relate to parking. Metroplan was the only document where

content analysis revealed policy statements that would work against any of the LUTI criteria,

with the highest coding for LU14, parking provided in shared structures rather than on

individual sites showing that the policy weakly works against this.

Local Government Documents

Overall, there is much diversity in how local government documents cover the LUTI land use

criteria. Whilst the breadth of coverage of criteria in the local planning schemes is better than

for the access criteria, coverage is inconsistent between local governments. The local

planning strategies were more consistent in terms of coverage, and showed higher support

ratings. Both schemes and planning strategies show a gap around LU5 to LU8, in the

subcategory of land use configuration. These are specific criteria relating to the relationship

between buildings and the street27

Table 17

. Local transport strategies and to an even greater extent,

local bicycle plans showed minimal coverage of the land use criteria (see ).

25 LU4, Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses and within buildings, LU5, High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop; LU6, Buildings oriented to station/streets/paths; LU7, Active ground floor uses for surveillance;, LU8, Frontage development – human scale. 26 LU14, parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites; LU15 car parking behind buildings not fronting street, LU16 Street parking, LU17, short-term parking but limited commuter parking; LU18 Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access. 27 LU 5 High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop, LU6 Active ground floor uses for surveillance, LU7 Active ground floor uses for surveillance, LU 8 frontage development – human scale.

72

Table 16 Local Planning Schemes – Land use criteria summary Local Planning Schemes L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Armadale 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Bayswater 1 1 1 2 3 3 2

Belmont 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1

Cambridge 2 3

Canning 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2

Claremont 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 3 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 3 1 3 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

Gosnells 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1

Joondalup 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Kalamunda 1 1 2 1 3 2

Kwinana 1 1 3 2 1 3 2

Mandurah 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1

Melville 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Mosman Park 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2

Mundaring 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1

Murray 2 1 1

Nedlands 1 3 1 1

Peppermint Grove 1 2 1 2

Perth 1 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 2 1 1 2 1

South Perth 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1

Stirling 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Swan 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1

Victoria Park 1 1 1 1

Vincent 1 1 3 1

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

73

Table 17 Non statutory local government documents – Land use criteria summary Local Planning Strategies L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Kwinana 1 1 3 3 1 3 2

Local Transport Strategies

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nedlands

Rockingham 1 1 1 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1

Local Bike Plans

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Canning 1

Fremantle 1 1

Melville

Rockingham 1

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

74

Local Planning Schemes

The LUTI Land use criteria that are most commonly supported in the local planning schemes

are:

• Land Use Configuration, LU1 Land use integrated with integrated transport 28 and

LU3 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts; 29

• Density/intensity, LU 9 Highest residential density in close proximity to activities

(but ensure includes family housing types)

30

• Parking, LU13 car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety

not compromised

; and

31; and LU 18, Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry

located on periphery of town with good car access32

.

A significant difference between the state government documents and local planning schemes

is that the local documents pay more attention to parking, albeit not always in a supportive

way. For example, many of the local schemes are unsupportive of, or include measures that

support as well as measures that work against LU15, car parking behind buildings not

fronting street33 and LU16, Street Parking.34 Two of the parking criteria, LU 1335

car

parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromise and LU 18

Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good

car access are broadly supported across many local planning schemes, and generally received

higher levels of support (see Table 16).

28 22 of 32 local planning schemes 29 18 of 32 local planning schemes 30 17 of 32 local planning schemes 31 20 of 32 local planning schemes 32 16 of 32 local planning schemes 33 3 schemes are supportive, 7 show a mix of supportive and unsupportive measures, and 7 are unsupportive 34 7 supportive, 8 unsupportive 35 20 of 32 local planning schemes

75

Similar gaps are present in the Local planning schemes to those identified in the state

documents. In the sub category of land use configuration, LU6-836, which focus on the

specifics of building orientation and activity in relation to the street, and LU 16-1737

Table 17

, which

are parking related criteria, are less well reflected in the local planning schemes than other

LUTI land use criteria. All the LUTI Land use criteria are positively mentioned in at least one

local planning scheme. Local planning schemes overall cover the parking related criteria

better than state government documents. The Cities of Swan, Fremantle and Bassendean

cover the most LUTI Land Use Criteria, (10 of 18 criteria, see ). South Perth local

planning scheme stands out in its coverage of parking; with positive support to 4 of 6 parking

criteria (see Table 17)

36 LU6, Buildings oriented to station/streets/paths; LU7, Active ground floor uses for surveillance;, LU8, Frontage development – human scale. 37 LU16 Street parking, LU17, short-term parking but limited commuter parking.

76

Table 18 Local Planning Schemes – Land use ratings Local Planning Schemes

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Armadale 1 1 1 2 1 3 3

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 -2 1 2

Bayswater 2 3 3 -2 2 2 -3

Belmont 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3

Cambridge -1 2

Canning 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 -3 -3

Claremont 2 3 2 3 -3 2 2 -2

Cockburn 1 1 3 1 2 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 3 2 1 2 3 3

Fremantle 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 1

Gosnells 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1

Joondalup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kalamunda 1 1 -1 2 2 -3

Kwinana 2 2 1 2 1 2 -1

Mandurah 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 -1 -1 1

Melville 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

Mosman Park 2 1 1 3 2 -1 -1 2 -1

Mundaring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -2 -1 2 1

Murray -1 1 1

Nedlands 1 1 2 1

Peppermint Grove 1 -3 1 -2

Perth 1 1 1 2 2

Rockingham 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 3 -1 2 3 -2 1

South Perth -1 2 2 -1 1 2 2 2 2 1

Stirling 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 -3 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 -1

Swan 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 -1 1 3

Victoria Park 1 1 1 2

Vincent 1 1 3 1

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Where local planning schemes are supportive of land use criteria, they are most likely to be

only weakly supportive of them. In addition to the two parking criteria discussed above, LU

13 and LU 14, schemes were most likely to be supportive, or strongly supportive of LU 10,

77

Density/intensity, medium to high residential densities. Although there were only nine

schemes that were supportive of LU 4, land use configuration, greater diversity, vibrant mix

of land uses within buildings, 7 of these 9 were either supportive or strongly supportive.

Also, particular schemes, including Belmont, Bayswater and Claremont were more likely, in

general, to be supportive of strongly supportive of criteria where they were coded than others.

The content analysis of local planning schemes clearly reflects diversity in local planning

schemes in terms of their support for the LUTI land use criteria. There is no clear framework

of trend by which LUTI criteria are incorporated, yet all the criteria are covered in at least a

few schemes, suggesting that they can all be supported by local planning schemes, even

though in practice they are not.

Non statutory local government documents

The local planning strategies that were analysed had more consistent and broader coverage of

the LUTI Land Use criteria than the Local planning schemes. Overall, there are three areas of

strength in these strategies: Land use configuration: (LU1-4 but not 5-8)38, density/intensity39

and Proximity40

38 That is, LU1, Land use integrated with integrated transport: LU2, A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use: LU3 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts, LU4, Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses and within buildings

. Like the state government documents and, gaps were present in LUTI Land

use configuration criteria (LU5-8) that focus on the specifics of building orientation and

activity in relation to the street, and in parking (LU14-17) (see Table 19). Overall, the local

planning strategies have more in common with the state government non statutory documents

than they do with the local planning schemes.

39 LU9, Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types); LU10, Medium to high residential densities. 40 LU11, Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity (walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop; LU12 More intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses (measured by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities.

78

In terms of its representation of LUTI land use criteria, the Fremantle local planning strategy

is a stand out, with a positive mention for sixteen of the eighteen land use criteria. The cities

of Cockburn and Armadale positively mention all LUTI Density/ Intensity and Proximity

criteria in their local planning strategies. The local planning schemes are also more consistent

in reflecting support or strong support for particular criteria and less likely to be weakly

supportive, or unsupportive of them.

Local transport strategies and local bike plans were comparatively weak in representing LUTI

Land use criteria. An exception is that most reference LU1, Land use integrated with

integrated transport.

79

Table 1912 Non statutory local government documents – Land use ratings Local Planning Strategies L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Armadale 3 1 2 1 2 -1 2 -1

Bassendean 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Cockburn 2 1 2 2 2 2

Cottesloe 1 2 1 -1 2 3 1

East Fremantle 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

Fremantle 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 -1 1

Kwinana 1 2 1 2 2 2 0

Local Transport Strategies

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Fremantle 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

Nedlands

Rockingham 2 1 1 1 2

South Perth 3 2 1 1 2 2

Subiaco 1 2 2 1 2

Local Bike Plans

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Canning 3

Fremantle 2 3

Melville

Rockingham 1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

For those local governments that had local planning strategies, a comparison of these non-

statutory documents was made with the relevant schemes. Given that it has already been

established that local transport strategies and local bike plans show minimal coverage of

LUTI land use criteria, these have not been included here. The comparison between local

planning strategies and local planning schemes is particularly interesting, as local planning

strategies are designed to inform the development of local planning schemes. Table 12

compares local planning strategies and local planning schemes for those local governments

that had them in terms of their representation of LUTI land use criteria.

80

Table 20 Land Use – Comparison of local planning strategies with local planning schemes L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18

Armadale Strategy 3 1 2 1 2 -1 2 -1

Armadale Scheme 1 1 1 2 1 3 3

Bassendean Strategy 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Bassendean Scheme 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 -2 1 2

Cockburn Strategy 2 1 2 2 2 2

Cockburn Scheme 1 1 3 1 2 1

Cottesloe Strategy 1 2 1 -1 2 3 1

Cottesloe Scheme 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle Strategy 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

East Fremantle Scheme 1 3 2 1 2 3 3

Fremantle Strategy 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 -1 1

Fremantle Scheme 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 1

Kwinana Strategy 1 2 1 2 2 2 0

Kwinana Scheme 2 2 1 2 1 2 -1

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Like the comparison made between the local planning schemes and the local transport

strategies, planning strategies and bike plans for access, there is no clear correlation between

local planning strategies, and local planning schemes in individual local government in terms

of how they represent the LUTI land use criteria. A possible exception to this is the

Fremantle local planning strategy (which represents all but one of the LUTI land use criteria)

and the representation in the local planning scheme, which is also thorough, and correlates

reasonably well with the local planning strategy. This finding is a concern, given the role of

local planning strategies in informing the ongoing development of local planning schemes –

81

however perhaps in the future these links will become more consistent. Alternatively, if local

planning strategies actively inform the application of schemes, and the development decisions

made in them, perhaps the lack of coherent link between the two types of documents is less of

a concern. Again, this is an important are for further research.

People Places Criteria

People places criteria, were covered better in local government documents that state

government documents, as a whole. This is the opposite trend to that reflected in the Access

and Land use content analysis. Only half of the people places criteria could be traced through

state statutory and non statutory documents and local planning schemes. Those that stand out

as having the most thorough overall coverage are:

• Scale and Design: PP2 - respecting existing development (through retention or

sympathetic redevelopment)41; and PP3, respecting existing development (through

retention or sympathetic redevelopment)42

• Amenity: PP6 - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in

its own right

;

43; and PP7 - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family

friendly44

.

Those that were not covered well through the suite of statutory and non statutory state and

local documents were:

• Scale and Design: PP4 - Diversity of architectural designs; and

41 Covered state statutory and non statutory documents, 31 of 32 local planning schemes, 6 of 7 local planning strategies 42 Covered state statutory and non statutory documents, all local planning schemes, 6 of 7 local planning strategies. 43 Covered state statutory and non statutory documents, 30 of 32 local planning schemes, all local planning strategies, 1 of 5 local transport strategies. 44 Covered state statutory and non statutory documents, 28 of 33 local planning schemes, 6 of 7 local planning strategies

82

• Amenity: PP7 - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly; PP8 -

Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art; PP9 - More social

encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport; and PP10 - Busy

places.

For the most part, this reflects gaps in state government documents, with schemes having

some breadth of coverage in these areas, especially PP7 and PP8.

State Government Documents

There were no state government documents that covered more than half of the people places

criteria. Best coverage (5 of 10 criteria with a positive mention) was present in the following

documents:

• Network City Community Planning Strategy;

• METROPLAN

• The Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Codes; and

• WAPC DC 1.6 Transport Oriented Development (Jan 06).

Table 21 State government documents - People Places summary State Policy Documents - Strategic P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

State Planning Strategy 1 1

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1

Network City 1 1 1 1 1

MetroPlan 1990 1 1 1 1 1

State Policy Documents - Statutory

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Liveable Neighbourhoods 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 1 1

83

Key

1 Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion

2 Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion

3 Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

There were 2 criteria for which there was a complete gap at the state level, PP4, Scale and

Design, diversity of architectural styles and PP9 Amenity, more social encounters due to

more walking, cycling, use of public transport. Two criteria were only represented at the state

level in statutory documents. PP1, Scale and Design, human scale – less demand for 70kph

scale advertising, more sense that cars are not the priority mode was reflected across 3 of the

5 statutory documents45. PP10, Amenity, Busy places was only reflected in WAPC DC 1.6,

Transport oriented development46. PP8, amenity, good ‘people places’ – public open space,

public seating, public art was only reflected the two overall Perth Strategic planning

documents, METROPLAN and Network City47

Table 22 State Government Documents – People places ratings

.

State Policy Documents - Strategic P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

State Planning Strategy 2 1

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1

Network City 1 3 1 2 3 1

MetroPlan 1990 2 3 1 2 2

State Policy Documents - Statutory

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Liveable Neighbourhoods 2 2 3 3 2

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 1 3 3 2 1

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 3 1

45 Liveable Neighbourhoods Edition 2 (2000), WAPC DC 1.6, Transport Oriented Development and WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road planning. 46 PP 9 in WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning and PP 10 in WAPC DC 1.6 Jan06 TOD 47 Network City Community Planning Strategy and the preceding METROPLAN

84

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Interestingly, Perth’s current strategic planning strategy, Network City Community Planning

Strategy and Metroplan scored positive mentions for most of same criteria, with similar

strength of support offered.

Where Liveable Neighbourhoods supports people places criteria, the analysis showed it to be

either supportive or strongly supportive of those criteria. Metroplan, Network City and

WAPC DC 1.6 Transport Oriented Development, were also predominantly supportive or

strongly supportive of the criteria that they referred to.

Local Government Documents

Local Planning Schemes

Local planning schemes show more breadth of coverage of people places criteria that they do

for access and land use. Criteria that were reflected in the most local planning schemes were:

• Scale and Design: PP2 - integration of character and scale of development within

precinct48; PP3 - respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic

redevelopment);49

• Amenity: PP6 - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in

its own right;

and

50 PP7 - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly;51

and PP8 - Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art.52

48 31 of 32 local planning schemes

49 32 of 32 local planning schemes

85

Within this group, PP3, respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic

redevelopment is by far the most prominent. Not only was it mentioned supportively in all

local planning schemes, 24 of 32 local government schemes were seen to be strongly

supportive of it. This may be of concern, as it indicates an overemphasis on maintaining the

status quo, which is out of balance with other people places criteria, which receive

comparatively less support. In Particular, there were six local governments that were coded as

unsupportive of PP4, Scale and Design, diversity of architectural styles, compared to 5 that

were supportive of this criterion. This is the only people places criteria where there was a

significant trend of lack of support. Considered together, it could be inferred that the focus on

respect for existing development styles goes along with a lack of support for diversity in

architectural styles, therefore, with this skewed emphasis, perhaps working against LUTI

overall.

50 30 of 32 local planning schemes 51 28 of 32 local planning schemes 52 29 of 32 local planning schemes

86

Table 133 Local planning scheme – People places summary Local Planning

Schemes

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1

Bayswater 1 1 1 1 1

Belmont 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cambridge 1 1 1 1 1 1

Canning 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Claremont 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1

Gosnells 1 1 1 1 1 1

Joondalup 1 1 1

Kalamunda 1 1 2 1 1

Kwinana 1 1 1 1 1

Mandurah 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Melville 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mosman Park 1 1 1 2 3 1

Mundaring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Murray 1 1 1 1

Nedlands 1 1 2 1 1 1

Peppermint Grove 1 1 1 1

Perth 1 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 1 1 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 1 1 1 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Stirling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Swan 1 1 1 1 1

Victoria Park 1 1 2 1 1

Vincent 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 1 1

The only complete gap in coverage for the local planning schemes was for PP5, Legible

design – is easily understood for residents and visitors53

53 0 of 32 local planning schemes

. Two criterion were poorly covered:

87

PP9, More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport54, and

PP10, busy places55

Table 24 Local planning schemes – People places ratings

Local Planning Schemes P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale 3 1 3 1 1 3

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1

Bayswater 3 3 2 1 3

Belmont 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

Cambridge 1 3 1 1 1 1

Canning 2 3 1 -2 2 2 2

Claremont -2 3 3 3 3 2 2

Cockburn 1 3 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 2 3 3 1 1 2

Fremantle 2 3 1 1 1 1

Gosnells 1 1 3 1 1 2

Joondalup 1 1 1

Kalamunda 1 3 -2 2 1

Kwinana 2 1 1 2 2

Mandurah 1 1 3 3 1 2 1

Melville 2 1 3 1 1 1 3

Mosman Park 1 1 3 1 1

Mundaring 1 1 3 1 1 3 1

Murray 1 3 1 1

Nedlands 1 3 -1 1 1 1

Peppermint Grove 1 3 1 1

Perth 2 3 3 1 2

Rockingham 2 1 1 1 3

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 2 3 1 1 3

South Perth 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1

Stirling 1 1 3 2 1 2 1

Subiaco 2 2 3 1 1 3 1

Swan 2 3 1 1 2

Victoria Park 3 2 -2 1 1

Vincent 1 1 3 -2 1 1 1

Wanneroo 3 1 3 1 1 2

Some stand out local governments in terms of their breadth of coverage in the 2 LUTI people

places categories were:

54 3 of 32 local planning schemes 55 5 of 32 local planning schemes

88

• Scale and Design, Melville and Belmont local planning schemes both positively

mentioned all scale and design criteria except PP5, Legible design – is easily

understood for residents and visitors, which was not coded for any LG Scheme.

• Amenity, Cambridge, Fremantle, Mandurah South Perth, Stirling and Subiaco all

positively mentioned 4 of 5 Amenity criteria. Cambridge was also either supportive or

strongly supportive of all the PP criteria that received a positive mention in its local

planning scheme.

There were six local governments that were coded as unsupportive of PP4, Scale and Design,

diversity of architectural styles, compared to 5 that were supportive of this criterion. This is

the only people places criteria where there was a significant trend of lack of support.

Other Local government documents

Like the local planning schemes, there is good overall coverage of people places criteria in

local planning strategies. Similar gaps are also present in Local planning strategies and local

planning schemes. – around PP5, PP9 and PP10 and additionally PP1. The Fremantle local

planning strategy is a stand out, with a positive mention for all of the people places criteria.

There is minimal representation of people places criteria in local transport strategies and bike

plans.

89

Table 25 Non statutory local government – People places ratings

Local Planning Strategies P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kwinana 1 1 1 1 1

Local Transport Strategies

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Fremantle

Nedlands

Rockingham

South Perth 1 1

Subiaco 1

Local Bike Plans

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Canning

Fremantle

Melville

Rockingham

For those local governments that had local planning strategies, a comparison of these non-

statutory documents was made with the relevant schemes. Given that it has already been

established that local transport strategies and local bike plans show minimal coverage of

LUTI people places criteria, these have not been included here. The comparison between

local planning strategies and local planning schemes is particularly interesting, as local

planning strategies are designed to inform the development of local planning schemes. Table

26 compares local planning strategies and local planning schemes for those local

governments that had them in terms of their representation of LUTI people places criteria.

90

The correspondence between local planning strategies and local planning schemes in terms of

their support for access and land use criteria was limited. However, the opposite is the case in

several of the local governments for people places. In Armadale, Bassendean and Cottesloe

and Kwinana the coverage of people places criteria is very similar between local planning

strategies and local planning schemes. For the remaining three local governments that had

both types of documents at the time of content analysis (Cockburn, East Fremantle,

Fremantle and Kwinana) there is significant cross over between the schemes and the

strategies. This result suggests support for people places criteria is much more internally

consistent, within these local governments than it is for access and land use.

91

Table 14 People Places – Comparison of Local planning strategies with local planning schemes P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale Strategy 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

Armadale Scheme 3 1 3 1 1 3

Bassendean Strategy 2 1 2 1 2

Bassendean Scheme 1 1 1 1 1

Cockburn Strategy 1 1

Cockburn Scheme 1 3 1 1 1

Cottesloe Strategy 1 1 1 1 2

Cottesloe Scheme 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle Strategy 2 3 1 1 1 -1 2

East Fremantle Scheme 2 3 3 1 1 2

Fremantle Strategy 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Fremantle Scheme 2 3 1 1 1 1

Kwinana Strategy 2 2 1 1 2

Kwinana Scheme 2 1 1 2 2

Key

3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion

2 Meets LUTI criterion

1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 Works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

Detailed analysis of local planning schemes against 5 key criteria

A number of additional criteria were examined to see if they were associated with differences

in how local planning schemes reflected LUTI criteria. These were:

• Location (inner, middle, outer)

• Population;

• Number of employees;

• Year in which the local Planning scheme was first drafted; and

• Membership to the sustainable transport coalition.

92

The reflection of LUTI criteria in local planning schemes was diverse, and subject is multiple

variables beyond these additional criteria that are yet to be explored. It is therefore not the

intent of this analysis to make clear or causal inferences from the data in relation to the

additional criteria above. However there are some interesting comments that can be made and

are worthy of further investigation in the course of this research project. The analysis is made

on a visual review of graphs mapping the number of criteria reflective positively, negatively

and ambiguously for each local government planning scheme against the categories above.

These graphs are contained in Appendix 7 to Appendix 9.

Overall, the results of this analysis demonstrate that Local Governments with more

employees, larger populations and more recently drafted planning schemes tend to refer

positively to more of the LUTI land use and access criteria. Perhaps counter-intuitively,

middle and outer local governments tend to refer to more land use and access criteria

positively than inner local governments. Local Governments were generally similar in terms

of there reflection of people places criteria. There was limited inference to be drawn from

membership to the sustainable transport coalition in terms of the number of LUTI criteria that

were positively reflected. However there were also many examples of outliers to this analysis

suggesting that there are several other factors at work in the development local planning

schemes and the relative breadth with which the LUTI criteria are covered.

Location

Overall, middle and outer local governments tend to reflect more of the LUTI access criteria

than inner local government planning schemes. Mandurah, an outer LGA reflects the most

LUTI access criteria, and several inner local governments reflect only one or two of the

93

access criteria. Similarly, the middle and outer local governments more consistently reflect

LUTI land use criteria positively. There are several local governments that are not well

reflected by this overall trend. For example, the inner LGA of Fremantle rates well both in

terms of access and land use criteria. Conversely, the outer LGA of Kwinana rates poorly in

terms of both land use and access criteria (see Figure 5.1 and 5.2). There is little difference in

reflection of the people places criteria by location of local government. (A full set of graphs

for location is contained in Appendix 6).

Figure 5.1

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI Access Critera (n=21) in Local Planning Schemes by LGA location (inner, middle, outer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Clarem

ont (I

)Cott

esloe

(I)

East F

reman

tle(I)

Freman

tle(I)

Mosman

Park

(I)Ned

lands

(I)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (I)

Perth (

I)Sub

iaco (

I)

Victori

a Park

(I)Vinc

ent (I

)

Basse

ndea

n (M)

Baysw

ater (

M)Belm

ont (M

)

Cambri

dge (

M)Can

ning (

M)

Cockb

urn (M

)Melv

ille (M

)

South

Perth (

M) Stirl

ing (M

)

Armad

ale(O

)Gos

nells

(O)

Joon

dalup

(O)

Kalamun

da (O

)

Kwinana

(O)

Mandu

rah (O

)

Munda

ring (

O)Murr

ay (O

)

Rockin

gham

(O)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(O)

Swan (O

)

Wan

neroo

(O)

LGA (I=innter, M=middle, O=outer)

posnegmix

94

Figure 5.2

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI Landuse Critera in Local Planning Schemes by LGA location (inner, middle, outer)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clarem

ont (I

)

Cottes

loe(I)

East F

reman

tle(I)

Freman

tle(I)

Mosman

Park

(I)

Nedlan

ds (I)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (I)

Perth (

I)

Subiac

o (I)

Victori

a Park

(I)

Vincen

t (I)

Basse

ndea

n (M)

Baysw

ater (

M)

Belmon

t (M)

Cambri

dge (

M)

Cannin

g (M)

Cockb

urn (M

)

Melville

(M)

South

Perth (

M)

Stirling

(M)

Armad

ale(O

)

Gosne

lls(O)

Joon

dalup

(O)

Kalamun

da (O

)

Kwinana

(O)

Mandu

rah (O

)

Munda

ring (

O)

Murray

(O)

Rockin

gham

(O)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(O)

Swan (O

)

Wan

neroo

(O)

LGA (I=inner, M=Middle, O=outer)

PosNegMix

Population

The resident population of Perth LGA’s varies significantly. The smallest, Peppermint Grove

has a population of 1580, and the largest, Stirling, a population of 176,872. Overall, the local

governments with the larger populations tend to positively reflect more LUTI land use and

access criteria. However, Fremantle (Population 24,835, for both access and land use), East

Fremantle (Population 6697, for access), Bassendean (Population 13, 463, for Land use) and

Subiaco (Population 16, 380, for land use) are significant outliers to this analysis (see Figure

5.3 and Figure 5.4). All have a comparatively small population but are strong in terms of the

number of access and land use criteria that they support in their local planning schemes.

There is no clear difference in terms of size in how the LG schemes reflect people places

criteria (A full set of graphs for population is contained in Appendix 7)

95

Figure 5.3

Number of positve, negative, mixed reference to LUTI access critera by LGA population

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (15

80)

East F

reman

tle (6

697)

Cottes

loe (7

256)

Mosman

Park

(825

1)

Clarem

ont (8

942)

Perth (

1157

3)

Murray

(119

69)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1288

9)

Basse

ndea

n (13

463)

Subiac

o (16

380)

Nedlan

ds (2

0335

)

Kwinana

(231

98)

Cambri

dge (

2375

3)

Freman

tle (2

4835

)

Vincen

t (268

76)

Victori

a Park

(279

55)

Belmon

t (303

31)

Munda

ring (

3509

7)

South

Perth (

3936

1)

Kalamun

da (4

9534

)

Armad

ale (5

0535

)

Baysw

ater (

5580

1)

Mandu

rah (5

5815

)

Cockb

urn (7

4472

)

Cannin

g (77

305)

Rockin

gham

(843

07)

Gosne

lls (91

579)

Melville

(930

03)

Swan (9

3279

)

Wan

neroo

(110

940)

Joon

dalup

(149

673)

Stirling

(176

872)

LGA (population)

posnegmix

Figure 2.4

Number of positive, negative, mixed reference to LUTI land use criteria by LGA population

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (15

80)

East F

reman

tle (6

697)

Cottes

loe (7

256)

Mosman

Park

(825

1)

Clarem

ont (8

942)

Perth (

1157

3)

Murray

(119

69)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1288

9)

Basse

ndea

n (13

463)

Subiac

o (16

380)

Nedlan

ds (2

0335

)

Kwinana

(231

98)

Cambri

dge (

2375

3)

Freman

tle (2

4835

)

Vincen

t (268

76)

Victori

a Park

(279

55)

Belmon

t (303

31)

Munda

ring (

3509

7)

South

Perth (

3936

1)

Kalamun

da (4

9534

)

Armad

ale (5

0535

)

Baysw

ater (

5580

1)

Mandu

rah (5

5815

)

Cockb

urn (7

4472

)

Cannin

g (77

305)

Rockin

gham

(843

07)

Gosne

lls (91

579)

Melville

(930

03)

Swan (9

3279

)

Wan

neroo

(110

940)

Joon

dalup

(149

673)

Stirling

(176

872)

LGA (population)

PosNegMix

96

Number of Employees

The number of employees in each local government also varies considerably across the

metropolitan area. It ranges from 18 in Peppermint Grove, which is also smallest local

government area to 789 in Stirling, the largest local government area. While there is close

correspondence between number of employees and population of the LGA, there are some

anomalies – for example, Fremantle has more employees compared to its size that other local

governments. Similarly to the analysis for population, the number of access and land use

criteria that are reflected tends to be higher in LGA’s that have more employees.

Interestingly, Fremantle has comparatively high number of employees for its population

(number of employees, 422) and therefore sits within this trend rather than as an outlier, as it

was in the population set. Following the trend suggested by the population data above,

Bassendean (number of employees 112), East Fremantle (number of employees 45) and

Subiaco (number of employees, 133) have comparatively few employees, but comparatively

good reflection of the access and land use criteria. Again, there is little to be said about the

people places criteria with reference to number of employees (A full set of graphs for this

data is available in Appendix 8)

Year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

The year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted varies between local

governments from 1983 to 2007. However, there is a requirement for local planning schemes

to be reviewed every five years, and they are periodically amended, so an old planning

scheme may contain several new measures. This was not specifically investigated, but needs

to be considered as context for this analysis.

97

There is a clear trend, particularly in the access data for planning schemes drafted since 2000

to reflect more access criteria more consistently. This may be related to the introduction of

the Model Scheme Text, with which local planning schemes must be consistent, in 1999.

Like the other data sets, however there are significant anomalies. In the area of access,

Mundaring (1994), Stirling (1985) Swan (1985) and in particular, Mandurah (1999) all

showed comparatively good coverage despite being outside this timeframe. Mandurah (1999)

reflects more access criteria than any other local government. The trend is much less clear for

land use criteria. The three schemes that reflect positively the most land use criteria are

Bassendean (1983), Swan (1985) and Fremantle (2007) through it would seem that there is a

more consistent reflection of land use criteria schemes drafted from 1999 on (see 5.5 and

Figure 5.6. There is no clear trend in how people places criteria are represented by scheme

age (a full set of graphs is available in see Appendix 9).

Figure 5.5

Number of positive, negative and mixed reference to LUTI Access Critera by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Basse

ndea

n(198

3)

Nedlan

ds (1

985)

Stirling

(198

5)

Swan (1

985)

Murray

1989

)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1989

)

Kwinana

(199

2)

Cannin

g (19

94)

Munda

ring (

1994

)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (19

96)

Cottes

loe (1

998)

Victori

a Park

(199

8)

Vincen

t (199

8)

Cambri

dge (

1998

)

Clarem

ont (1

999)

Mosman

Park

(199

9)

Belmon

t (199

9)

Melville

(199

9)

Mandu

rah (1

999)

Joon

dalup

(200

0)

Subiac

o (20

01)

Wan

neroo

(200

1)

Cockb

urn (2

002)

Gosne

lls (20

02)

South

Perth (

2003

)

East F

reman

tle (2

004)

Perth (

2004

)

Baysw

ater (

2004

)

Rockin

gham

(200

4)

Armad

ale (2

005)

Freman

tle (2

007)

Kalamun

da (2

007)

LGA (year scheme drafted)

posnegmix

98

Figure 5.6

Number of positive, negative and mixed reference to LUTI Land Use critera by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Basse

ndea

n(198

3)

Nedlan

ds (1

985)

Stirling

(198

5)

Swan (1

985)

Murray

1989

)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1989

)

Kwinana

(199

2)

Cannin

g (19

94)

Munda

ring (

1994

)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (19

96)

Cottes

loe (1

998)

Victori

a Park

(199

8)

Vincen

t (199

8)

Cambri

dge (

1998

)

Clarem

ont (1

999)

Mosman

Park

(199

9)

Belmon

t (199

9)

Melville

(199

9)

Mandu

rah (1

999)

Joon

dalup

(200

0)

Subiac

o (20

01)

Wan

neroo

(200

1)

Cockb

urn (2

002)

Gosne

lls (20

02)

South

Perth (

2003

)

East F

reman

tle (2

004)

Perth (

2004

)

Baysw

ater (

2004

)

Rockin

gham

(200

4)

Armad

ale (2

005)

Freman

tle (2

007)

Kalamun

da (2

007)

LGA (year scheme drafted)

PosNegMix

Membership to the Sustainable Transport Coalition

There is no discernable association between STC membership and positive reference to

access criteria or people places criteria. Local governments who were STC members showed

more consistent reflection of more land use criteria than those that were not though this

cannot be seen as a causal factor (a full set of graphs is available in

99

Appendix 10),

Ambiguity or negative representation in state and local government policy

Overall, the content analysis reflected that for the most part, the LUTI criteria were either

reflected positively or not at all in documents. However there were a significant number of

documents that worked against the LUTI criteria, or had mixed messages with some

statements that worked for and some against the LUTI criteria.

Of the state government documents, WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning mixed both

positive and negative mentions for more criteria than any of the other documents. The content

analysis suggests that the policy is mixed in terms of its support for Access 5: Well designed

walkable catchments; Access 6: High quality pedestrian experience (and 6a arterial roads

have safe pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes); and Access criteria 10: effective traffic

management. For example, the following statement was coded, under A10 as partly positive

and partly negative’

While the need to provide for the motor vehicle remains of fundamental importance

(negative), much greater priority must now be given to the creation of a safe, quiet and

useable neighbourhood environment where the motor vehicle is less dominant than in

many of our existing residential areas (positive) (WAPC, 1998).

Overall local government planning schemes were far more likely to have mixed, or negative

content in relation to the LUTI criteria. This was particularly the case in the area of Land

Use, and for the following criteria:

• Land Use configuration, LU3 - Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within

precincts;

• Density and Intensity, LU10 - Medium to high residential densities;

100

• Parking, LU14 - Parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites;

and LU 15 - Car parking behind buildings not fronting street.

There were also particular local governments whose schemes reflected more negative or

ambiguous reference to the LUTI criteria. Bayswater includes 3 mixed and 4 negative scores,

Claremont, 2 mixed and 4 negative, Mandurah, 4 negative and 4 mixed, Mosman park, 5

negative and 3 mixed, Mundaring, 3 negative and 2 mixed, Stirling, 3 negative and 3 mixed

(see Appendix 4 Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by positive,

negative or mixed reference to LUTI Criteria).

Metroplan and Network City: changing representation of LUTI criteria in

Perth’s strategic planning documents over time.

Looking across the data in Appendix 5, Network city show much more breadth of coverage

across the LUTI criteria, particularly in the areas of Access and land use than Metroplan. The

strength with which criteria are mentioned is also much higher, with Network city far more

likely to support or strongly support the LUTI criteria than Metroplan. Therefore this

suggests a trend, at the state strategic level toward greater support for land use and transport

integration over time.

101

6 Discussion and scoping for stage two of the research project This working paper reports on the first stage of a research project to assess the capacity of the

planning and infrastructure institutions in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Area to deliver

sustainable and integrated land-use/transport outcomes. It began with a review of policy for

land use and transport integration in the Greater Perth Metropolitan region. The suite of

policy documents most relevant to land use and transport integration at the State government

level and within local governments was set out, and the methodology for content analysis of

these documents against a comprehensive set of LUTI principles described. The body of the

working paper has presented results and related discussion on the content analysis of local

and state government policy documents that was the focus of stage one of this research

project. The aim of this stage of the research was to produce a comprehensive position

statement about the degree to which, and in what way local and state government institutions

operating in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region aspire to the integration of land use and

transport through their statutory and non-statutory policy documents.

This working paper is part of a broader research project that seeks to answer the following

questions:

1. What is the current capacity (using statutory and non-statutory powers) of state and local

public agencies to integrate land use and transport planning towards achieving

infrastructure/services for collective and active modes of transport and managing car

based travel?

2. What are the institutional constraints (rules, finance, structures, cultures etc) to delivery?

3. How can the capacity be improved?

102

The aim of producing a comprehensive position statement about the degree to which, and in

what way public institutions aspire to the delivery of sustainable transport through policy

documents is achieved through the response to the first research question above.

Addressing the research question

The primary research question addressed in this working paper, for the Greater Perth

Metropolitan Region, is:

What is the current capacity (using statutory and non-statutory powers) of state and

local public agencies to integrate land use and transport planning towards achieving

infrastructure/services for collective and active modes of transport?

It has been argued that that policy development usually occurs from the top down, with State

government policy legislation providing overarching direction, and local government

providing more operational detail (see discussion beginning on p. 11) This is reflected at least

partly by the outcomes of the content analysis – for example, local government planning

schemes are far more detailed than state government documents in the area of parking, and in

their incorporation of the LUTI people places criteria. However this was not reflected at all

within the content analysis in the area of access. Local governments have limited

responsibility for public transport provision, and state government documents were far more

detailed, and offered much broader coverage of access criteria overall. This is a significant

omission in the policy framework at a local level that may require redress to enable land use

and transport integration in Perth.

Overall, it was found that there was significant commitment to many of the principles that

enable the integration of land use and transport. This was particularly the case in non-

statutory policy at both the state government level and at the local government level within

103

local government where such policy has been developed. Statutory policy at the state

government level shows more consistent and broader coverage of the LUTI principles than

the statutory local planning schemes. In local planning schemes, the representation of LUTI

criteria is inconsistent and often patchy. Therefore, the statutory planning framework at the

local government level can be seen to currently reflect varied capacity to implement LUTI

across local government, and often, a limited capacity to support LUTI.

The comparison of Metroplan with Network City at the State government level, and also the

analysis of LUTI integration by scheme age across local governments suggest a trend toward

greater capacity for policy to support for LUTI over time, a positive trend. Several local

governments also show a strategic level commitment through their local planning strategies

and local transport plans, and these are also a more recent policy invention.

The brief analysis of particular local government characteristics – such as location,

population and number of employees suggests correlation between these factors and the

representation of access and land use criteria in particular. There are likely to be additional

local government specific factors that affect policy integration and implementation, some of

which may be uncovered in the second stage of this research project.

Progressing to stage two of the research

The aim of stage 2 of the research project is to identify institutional constraints (rules,

finance, structures, cultures etc) to delivery of LUTI. The content analysis of policy has

provided a good integration of the subject areas, and focus local government where this may

best be investigated. Finalisation of the research approach and methodology needs to occur

with reference to a detailed scoping of this aim.

104

Both strengths and gaps in vertical integration between state and local government were

identified by the content analysis. There were also identified strengths and weaknesses in

representation of the LUTI criteria at the state level, and local government level. The

particular differences across local governments are in terms of their representation of LUTI

are also useful in framing further research.

A detailed analysis of vertical integration between state and local government and horizontal

integration across state government policy, and across different LGA’s is provided in the

results section. Strengths and weaknesses in vertical integration, within state government

documents and within local government planning schemes are further summarised in Tables

28, 29 and 30. Notable local governments are identified in Table 27. These summaries form

the basis for identifying potential case study topics to proceed with in stage two of this

research project in Perth. They suggest several parameters by which case studies could be

defined and are summarised below. In places, a preliminary discussion of methodology is

also provided.

Case Study Option 1 – Exemplar local government in terms of Policy integration and breadth of coverage of LUTI The notable local government here is Fremantle. The City of Fremantle is the only local

government with the full suite of policy documents investigated at the local government level

through the content analysis: a Local planning scheme, local planning strategy, local transport

strategy, and a local bike plan. It is also the only local government were there is some

consistency between the local planning strategy and the local planning scheme in terms of

LUTI coverage. The Fremantle local planning scheme is supportive of 10 of 18 land use

criteria. Only two other local governments (Swan and Bassendean) are supportive of this

105

many Land use criteria. Unlike many other inner local governments, and local governments

with smaller populations, which tend towards limited breadth in their coverage of access and

land use criteria, the Fremantle scheme covers these criteria comparatively well. Table 27

provides a summary of potential exemplar local governments to be followed up in further

case study research.

Table 27 Exemplar local governments

Local government

Reason for standing out

Fremantle The city of Fremantle is the only local government with the full suite of policy documents – Local planning scheme, local planning strategy, local transport strategy, local bike plan. The local planning scheme is supportive of 10 of 18 land use criteria. Only two other local governments (Swan and Bassendean) are supportive of this many Land use criteria. Unlike many other inner local governments, and local governments with smaller populations, which tend towards limited breadth in their coverage of access and land use criteria, the Fremantle scheme covers these criteria comparatively well The Fremantle local planning strategy covers 16 of 18 land use criteria, and this corresponds well the comparatively high representation of land use criteria in the scheme. It was also coded with a positive mention for all people places criteria.

Mandurah The local planning scheme was coded positively with more access criteria than any other local government area. All of the Access criteria in the area of activity function were coded positively. The local planning scheme, which was drafted in 1999, reflects more access criteria than any other local government, despite the trend toward more recently drafted schemes increasingly representing more access criteria. The scheme is not as strong on land use criteria, with 4 criteria coded as not supported, and 4 criteria coded with a mix of supportive and non-supportive statements.

Swan The scheme positively mentions 10 of 18 land use criteria, along with Bassendean and Fremantle, the highest breadth of coverage. Although the trend is toward schemes being drafted more recently reflecting more access and land use criteria, the Swan scheme was drafted in 1985 and reflects a comparatively high number of access criteria

Bassendean The Local Planning Scheme is supportive of 10 of 18 land use criteria. Alongside Swan and Fremantle, this is the highest breadth of support provided in local planning schemes. Unlike many local governments with smaller populations and less employees, which tend towards limited breadth in there coverage of land use, the Bassendean scheme covers these criteria comparatively well. Although the trend it toward schemes being drafted more recently reflecting more land use criteria, the Bassendean scheme was drafted in 1983 and reflects a comparatively high number of land use criteria.

106

Case Study Option 2 - Lack of support for, or ambiguity in the representation of LUTI The issue of lack of support ambiguity in the coverage of LUTI criteria is interesting, as it

suggests mixed messages in the policy framework that may get in the way of actual

achievement of land use and transport integration, or perhaps, spatial variation within an

LGA in how LUTI might be achieved. Local government planning schemes were far more

likely to contain mixed messages in relation to LUTI than state government documents. It

may therefore be useful to do a case study of local government(s) that includes a significant

number of LUTI criteria for which there are mixed positive and negative reference. Potential

candidates for case study here include:

• Bayswater. The Bayswater local planning scheme includes 3 mixed (A1, LU13,

LU14) and 4 negative (A7, A9, LU10, LU15) codes;

• Claremont. The Claremont local planning scheme includes 2 mixed (LU3, LU14)

and 4 negative (A7, LU10, LU16, PP1) codes;

• Mandurah. The City of Mandurah Scheme includes 4 negative (A7, A9, LU15,

LU16) and 4 mixed (LU2, LU9, LU10 LU14) codes;

• Mosman Park. The Mosman Park Local Planning Scheme includes 5 negative

(A7, LU 12, LU 13, LU16, PP4) and 3 mixed (LU3, LU10, PP6) codes;

• Mundaring. The Mundaring Local Planning Scheme includes, 3 negative (A7,

LU16, LU17) and 3 mixed (LU3, LU10, LU14) codes; and

• Stirling. The Stirling Local Planning Scheme includes, 3 negative (A7, LU 8,

LU16) and 3 mixed (LU3, LU10, LU15) codes.

a. Local government that fall, in a positive way, outside the trend.

An in depth qualitative case study of local governments would be appropriate here, to

investigate:

107

a) Mechanisms for aligning with state government policy, if any

b) Relationship between policy that was investigated for the content analysis and other

local government policy – i.e. the whole policy context for that particular local

government;

c) The role of particular people or organisational structures and dynamics that have

enabled the development of the policy context for that particular LGA

d) The degree of implementation of policy for LUTI

Appropriate methods include: Further document analysis for the case study local government;

depth interviews and/or focus groups with current and past staff and councillors. Purposive

sample based on key roles, and snowballing recommendations for interviews.

Case Study Option 3. Particular areas of concern, or gaps, in vertical integration between state and local government policy, or horizontal integration across different local governments. There were a number of gaps in vertical integration identified in the content analysis that

warrant further investigation via case study. Many of these also have relevant elements

reflected in the different results for different local government areas, and across the state

government documents – that is, in terms of horizontal integration. Table 27,Table 28 and

Table 29 summarise strengths and weaknesses in vertical and horizontal integration of the

LUTI criteria in the policy investigated. They include:

• Operational aspects of public transport (A14-A18). This was the most

significant gap in coverage, particularly at the local government level, and to a

lesser degree in statutory state government policy;

• Traffic management. (esp. A7 and A9). These criteria were not coded at all in

local governments and not covered well in many state government documents;

108

• Land Use Configuration. Both at the state and the local government level,

there was a trend toward support for the more generic criteria of land use

configuration (LU1-4) but absence of the more specific criteria relating to the

relationship between buildings and the street (LU5-8). This is likely to severely

hamper the achievement of land use configuration that is conducive to land use and

transport integration, and therefore warrants further investigation;

• Parking. Coverage of parking criteria was much broader at the local

government level than the state government level, albeit frequently in an

ambiguous way than it was at the state level. As parking is essential to access, and

the design of spaces so that they are accessible by multiple transport modes, this

area warrants further investigation;

• Scale and design. Overall, people places criteria were better represented in

local governments than they were in state government policy. Within local

governments, the interplay in representation of the scale and design elements

warrants further investigation. Specifically, the focus towards support for

‘Integration of character and scale of development within precinct’ and ‘Respecting

existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment)’ which

were frequently supported and other scale and design criteria of diversity of

architectural styles which was far less likely to be supported, and legible design

which was not directly supported in any local planning scheme. This skewed focus

has potential to negatively impact on LUTI. Given the lack of coverage of people

places criteria generally at the state government level, there is no state government

framework to provide direction here.

109

Appropriate methods for this type of case study could include could include identification,

from the content analysis results, a limited subset of local governments that exemplify the

phenomena to be investigated and to undertake a detailed analysis of the policy and

legislative context for phenomena, including identifying roles and responsibly and the nature

of them at state and local level. The phenomena could also be investigated with exemplar

local governments through depth interviews and focus groups and in relation to the particular

policy and location context of that local government, with additional interviews with relevant

state government workers in relation to phenomena.

110

Table 28 Vertical integration of LUTI criteria across state and local government policy

Strengths in Vertical Integration Gaps in Vertical integration Access Activity Function -High quality pedestrian experience Traffic Management -Effective traffic management Service -Integrated transport – easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these modes - Public Transport Service, Accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc -Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity

Access Traffic management -narrower streets Service Operational aspects of a good public transport systems: -Timetabling; efficient public transport service to many destinations; -Easy to navigate system; -High frequency. -Reliable, -Efficient public transport service to many destinations

Land Use Land Use Configuration - Land use integrated with integrated transport -A robust urban form – can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use -Greater diversity – vibrant mix of land uses within precincts Density/intensity -Highest residential density in close proximity to activities

Land Use Land use configuration - High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop (Gap at the state level) - Active ground floor uses for surveillance (Gap in local schemes) Parking (Gap in state non-statutory documents) -Car parking behind buildings not fronting the street -Car based retailing (drive thru’) and light industrial located on periphery of town with good car access

People Places Scale and Design -Integration of character and scale of development within precinct - Respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment) Amenity -High amenity precincts – a place you want to go, a destination in its own right - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly56

.

People Places Scale and Design -Diversity of architectural designs Amenity -Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly; -Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art; -More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport; and PP10 - Busy places

56 Covered state statutory and non statutory documents, 30 of 33 local planning schemes, 6 of 7 local planning strategies

111

Table 159 Representation of LUTI Criteria at the State government level

Strengths in Representation Gaps in Representation Access The following criteria had significant support in statutory and non statutory documents. Activity Function -High quality pedestrian experience including arterial roads that have pedestrian facilities and on-road cycle lanes Service -Integrated transport – easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these modes - Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity

Access Traffic Management -Narrower streets (only positively coded once in one document) Service Operational aspects of a good public transport systems were virtually absent from state statutory documents: -Timetabling; efficient public transport service to many destinations; -Easy to navigate system; -High frequency. -Reliable, -Efficient public transport service to many destinations

Land Use Land Use Configuration -Land Use integrated with Integrated transport -A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use. Density/Intensity -Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types) Proximity Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity (walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop

Land Use Land Use configuration -High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop (not reflected at all in state government documents) Parking - Car parking behind buildings not fronting street; - Street parking; - Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access (Only reflected in state statutory documents)

People Places Scale and Design - Integration of character and scale of development within precinct -Legible design – is easily understood for residents and visitors. Amenity - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right

People Places There were not state government documents that covered more than half of the people places criteria. Complete gaps at the state level occurred in Scale and Design - Diversity of architectural styles Amenity, -More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport

112

Table 30 Representation of LUTI Criteria at the Local government level

Strengths in Representation Gaps in Representation Access Close to half or more of the local planning schemes were positively coded with the following criteria. The Network - Choice of transport options in close proximity Traffic management - Effective Traffic Management Service -Public transport that is accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc.

Access The following criteria were not coded positively at all in local planning schemes. Traffic Management -lower traffic speeds -Narrower streets Service Operational aspects of a good public transport systems: -Timetabling; efficient public transport service to many destinations; -Easy to navigate system; -High frequency. -Reliable, -Efficient public transport service to many destinations

Land Use The following are identified as strengths in the local planning schemes – though in practice, many of the local planning schemes did not get coded positively for them. Land Use Configuration - Land use integrated with integrated transport - Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts Density/intensity -Medium to high residential densities -Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types). Parking - Car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromised - Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access

Land Use Land use configuration - High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop - Active ground floor uses for surveillance - Active ground floor uses for surveillance, - Frontage development – human scale.

People Places Scale and Design - Integration of character and scale of development within precinct - Respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment) Amenity: - High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right; - Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly; - Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art.

People Places Scale and Design - Diversity of architectural styles - Legible design – is easily understood for residents and visitors Amenity - More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport, - Busy places

113

7 Acknowledgements The research undertaken for this first stage of the project has spanned a considerable period of time, commencing in late 2006 with document collation. The authors would like to acknowledge the earlier inputs by previous research assistants: Jake Schapper, Roger Mellor, and more recently Courtney Babb.

114

8 References Appleyard D and Lintel M 1972 ‘The Environmental Quality of City Streets’ Journal of the American Planning Institute 38 (2): 84-101. Ball S 1993 ‘What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes’ Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 13(2): 10-17. Banister D 2005 ‘Overcoming barriers to the implementation of sustainable transport’ in P Reitveld & R Stough (eds.)Barriers to Sustainable Transport: institutions, regulations and sustainability Spon Press, Abingdon. Bertolini L & le Clercq F 2003 'Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region.' Environment and Planning A, 35: 575-589. Bikewest 2008 Local Government Bicycle Plans – Guidelines for preparing bicycle plans. Government of Western Australia, Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Breheny M, Gurney A, Strike J 1996 ‘The Compact City and the Need to Travel: The implementation of UK Planning Policy Guidance’ in M Jenks, E Burton & K Williams The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, E & FN Spon Press, Abbington. Bunker R and Searle G 2009 ‘Theory and practice in metropolitan strategy: Situating recent Australian planning’ Urban Policy and Research 27(2): 101-116. Condon P 2008 Design Charettes for Sustainable Communities Washington DC, Island Press. Commonwealth of Australia 2008 The people of Western Australia: Statistics from the 2006 census Department of Immigration and Citizenship and Office of Multicultural Interests. URL: http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/omi_people.asp accessed 9/6/09. Curtis C 1998 Integrated Land Use & Transport Planning Policies: A review of selected initiatives outside Australia and their applicability to strategic land use planning in Perth. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, Western Australia. (ISBN:0 7309 9032 X) Curtis C 1999 ‘Turning Strategies into Actions: Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning in Western Australia’ Refereed Paper to the 23rd Australasian Transport Research Forum 1999 - Conference Proceedings 349-363. Curtis C 2005 ‘The Windscreen World of Land Use Transport Integration: Experiences from Perth, a Dispersed City’ Town Planning Review 76(4): 423-453 Curtis 2008 ‘Planning for Sustainability: The Implementation Challenge’ Transport Policy 15 (2):104-112 Curtis C & James B 2004, 'An Institutional Model for Land Use Transport Integration', Urban Policy and Research 22(3): 277-297. Curtis, C and Scheurer, J 2007 Multiple Accessibility: Developing a Tool for Evaluating Land Use-Transport Integration’ Paper presented to AESOP 2004 Congress, Grenoble, France, July 2004 and 19th EAROPH Congress, Melbourne, September 2004. [DPI] Department of Planning and Infrastructure nd. Building Networks. Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Perth.

115

[DPI] Department of Planning and Infrastructure 2001 Integrated Transport Planning Partnering Agreement Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Perth. [DOTARS] Department of Transport and the Regional Services 2003 National Charter of Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning, Department of Transport and the Regions, Canberra. [EMCT/OECD] European Conference of Transport Ministers & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2003 Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies: National Reviews, OECD Publications Service, Paris. City of Gosnells 2007 Gosnells Strategic Plan 2007-2010 City of Gosnells, Perth. Gehl J 1987 Life Between Buildings - Using Public Space, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. Hedgcock D 2003 ‘The exercise of influence within the local planning system’ Australian Planner 40(3): 35-39. Jacobs A B 2001 Great Streets MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Kennedy C, Miller E, Shalaby H, MacLean, H and Coleman J 2005 ‘The four pillars of sustainable urban transportation’ Transport reviews 25(4):393-414 Ministry for Transportation and Ministry for Municipal Affairs 1995, Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines, Ministry for Transportation and Ministry for Municipal Affairs, Ontario. North D 1990 Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance New York, Cambridge University Press. Neuendorf K 2005 The Content Analysis Guidebook Sage Publications Thousand Oak. Potter S & Skinner M J 2000 'On transport integration: a contribution to better understanding', Futures, 32: 257-287.

Radaelli, C 1995 'The role of knowledge in the policy process' Journal of European Public Policy 2(2): 159-183.

Rietveld P & Stough R (eds.) 2005, Barriers to Sustainable Transport: institutions, regulations and sustainability, Spon Press, Abingdon.

Richardson E 2002 'The Role of Local Government in Integrated Transport', Integrated Transport for Local Communities, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia.

Schaeffer K H & Sclar E 1975, Access for All. Transportation and Urban Growth, Penguin Books, Baltimore, USA.

Stein L 2008 Principles of Planning Law South Melbourne Oxford University Press

Stemlar S 2001 An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17) retrieved August 26, 2009 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17

Tibbalds F 2001, Making People Friendly Places: Improving the public environment in towns and cities, Spon Press, London.

Ubbels B and Verhoef E 2005, Barriers to transport pricing, in P Reitveld and R Stough eds. Barriers to Sustainable Transport: institutions, regulations and sustainability Spon Press, Abingdon.

116

[WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission (1999) Town Planning Amendment Regulations (1999) Model Scheme Text no.33 November 1999

[WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 2004, Network city: community planning strategy for Perth and Peel, WAPC, Perth.

[WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission (2006) "Swan Valley Planning Legislation Amendment Act", Planning Bulletin Western Australia June 2006: 1-8.

Westerman H L 1998, Cities for Tomorrow: Integrating Land Use, Transport and the Environment. Better Practice Guide, Austroads Incorporated, Haymarket, New South Wales. Whyte W H 1980 The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Project for Public Spaces, Michigan. Yenken D 1995, 'Collaboration in Placemaking', in T Winkoff ed. Places not Spaces: Placemaking in Australia Envirobooks, Sydney.

117

9 Appendices

118

Appendix 1A:

List of Policy documents that were analysed against the LUTI criteria in this content

analysis

State Government Documents Department of Planning and Urban Development 1990. Metroplan, Department of Planning and Urban Development, Perth, December 1990. Department of Transport, Main Roads Western Australia, Ministry for Planning, Fremantle Port Authority, Westrail and Metrobus 1995, Perth Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1995-2029. Government of Western Australia, Perth. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 1998, ‘Residential Road Planning’ Development Control Policy 2.6, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, June 1998. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 1998, ‘Bicycle Planning’ Development Control Policy 1.5, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, July 2008. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 2000, Liveable Neighbourhoods Edition 2 Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 1997, State Planning Strategy, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 2004, Network City: A Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, December 2004. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, ‘Planning to Support Transit Use and Transit Oriented Development’ Development Control Policy 1.6, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, January 2006. [WAPC] Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, ‘Urban Growth and Settlement’ Statement of Planning Policy no. 3 Western Australian Government Gazette 46 17th March 2006. Local Planning Schemes City of Armadale 2005 Town Planning Scheme No 4 (District Zoning Scheme) City of Armadale, Perth, Gazetted 4th November 2005 Town of Bassendean 2005 Town Planning Scheme no. 10 (draft) Town of Bassendean, Perth, Date of Issue February 2005 City of Bayswater 2004 District Town Planning Scheme No 4 Scheme Text City of Bayswater, Perth, Gazetted 26th November 2004 City of Belmont 1999 District Zoning Scheme No. 14 Scheme Text City of Belmont, Perth, Gazetted 10th December 1999 Town of Cambridge 1998 Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Town of Cambridge, Perth, Gazetted 21st March 1998.

119

City of Canning Town Planning Scheme No. 40 City Zoning Scheme City of Canning, Perth Gazetted 18th February 1994 City of Cockburn 2002 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Scheme Text City of Cockburn, Perth, Gazetted 20th December 2002 Town of Claremont 1999 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Consolidated Scheme) Town of Claremont, Perth, Gazetted 1 June 1999. Town of Cottesloe 1988 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Town of Cottesloe, Perth, Gazetted 23rd December 1988. Town of East Fremantle 2004 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Scheme Text, Town of East Fremantle, Perth, Gazetted 3 December 2004. City of Fremantle 2007 Local Planning Scheme No 4 Scheme Text City of Fremantle, Perth, Gazetted 8 March 2007 City of Gosnells 2002 Town Planning Scheme no. 6 City of Gosnells, Perth, Gazetted 15 February 2002 City of Joondalup 2000 District Planning Scheme no. 2 City Of Gosnells, Perth, Gazetted November 2000 Shire of Kalamunda 2006 Town Planning Scheme No.2 Shire of Kalamunda, Perth, Gazetted 28 Nov 1984. Updated 1 November 2006 Town of Kwinana 2002 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Town of Kwinana, Perth, Gazetted 20 November 1992 City of Mandurah 1999 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 City of Mandurah, Perth, Gazetted 1999 City of Melville 1999 Community Planning Scheme No. 5 City of Melville, Perth, Gazetted 14th December 1999 Town of Mosman Park 1999 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Town of Mosman Park, Perth, Gazetted 8 October 1999 Shire of Mundaring 1994 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Shire of Mundaring, Perth, Gazetted 18 March 1994 Shire of Murray 1989 Town Planning Scheme No. 4 Shire of Mundaring, Perth, Gazetted 23 June 1989 City of Nedlands 1985 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 City of Nedlands, Perth, Gazetted 18 April 1985, Updated 7 September 2006 Shire of Peppermint Grove 1996 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Shire of Peppermint Grove, Perth, Gazetted 2 August 1996 City of Perth 2004 City Planning Scheme No. 2 City of Perth, Perth Gazetted 9th January 2004 City of Rockingham 2004 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 City of Rockingham, Perth, Gazetted 19th November 2004

120

Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1989 Town Planning Scheme No 2 Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Perth Gazetted 4 August 1989 City of South Perth 2003 Town Planning Scheme No. 6 City of South Perth, Perth, Gazetted 29 April 2003 City of Stirling 1985 District Planning Scheme No. 2 City of Stirling, Perth, Gazetted 13 September 1985 City of Subiaco 2001 Town Planning Scheme No. 4 City of Subiaco, Perth, Gazetted 23 March 2001 City of Swan 1985 Town Planning Scheme No. 9 City of Swan, Perth, Gazetted 9th December 1985). Consolidated scheme text incorporating amendments gazetted up to 30 January 2006. Town of Victoria 1998 Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Scheme Text Town of Victoria Park, Perth, Gazetted 1998. Consolidated scheme text incorporating amendments gazetted up to 3 May 2005 Town of Vincent 1998 Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Town of Vincent, Perth, Gazetted 4th December 1998 City of Wanneroo 2001 District Planning Scheme City of Wanneroo, Perth, Gazetted 6th July 2001

121

Appendix 1B: Full suite of Policy Documents by Local Government from

which sample is drawn

1

Document Type

Local Government Strategic Plan

Plan of Principle activities

Local Planning Strategy

Local Planning Scheme

Policy Manual

Transport Strategy

Bicycle Plan

Environmental Strategy

Sustainability Plan Access Plan

Safety Plan

Other policies/ documents

Armadale 15/3/05* 28/10/05 4 /11/05 10/2007 Ad 16/1/06 14/10/05* 10/10/05* 19/8/04*

Bassendean 2005 2/05 18/3/83 12/2005 10/8/05* 1/03

30/12/04* 5/02

Bayswater, 3/2006 3/05 26/11/04

3/2007

28/5/02 25/1/05 25/1/05

23/6/05 4/02 10/06

2/9/05

Belmont, 14/7/05*

4/7/06* 10/12/99

8/2007 29/04/05 Ad 6/9/05

12/11/04* 8/9/06*

30/11/06*

Cambridge 2005 31/3/1998

9/2007 9/06 2/05 2004 (?)

1/05

Canning, 8/06 18/2/1994

10/2006 9 times 28/2/06

12/01 9/97

28/3/02

Claremont Ad20/6/06 26/7/04 1/6/1999

3/2007 1/7/05 9/01

Cockburn 6/10/06*

9/8/06* 8/2000 20/12/02

8/2007

19/9/06 15/3/05 14/7/05 17/9/02 8/12/05 17/9/02 8/6/06

(?) 17/1/04* 17/1/04*

Cottesloe 31/7/06 2000(?) 1/7/05

Late 2005

council adopted

23/12/88 7/2007 5/99

24/5/89 27/9/06

8/02 4/03 Ad27/8/01

East Fremantle 2006 6/7/04 6/2003 3/12/04 2/2007

16/3/99 3/6/03

18/5/00 2/2/06*

Fremantle 9/4/06 5/7/04 7/01 8/3/07 3/2007

23/10/00 18/11/91

18/7/88 6/6/00

27/1/99

21/6/99 12/04

24/6/04* 9/03 25/6/04 11/02

8/96 2/01 2005 6/00

11/02

2

Gosnells 2007 15/2/02 7/2007

10/5/05 22/08/06

11/5/04 7/12/04 24/3/06 9/11/01 27/08/02

12/03

Joondalup 24/6/03 28/11/00

8/2007

10/05 10/06

5/06 9/1/04* 4/8/05*

5/10/04 4/8/05

2/95

Kalamunda 21/6/06 5/12/00

28/11/84

Kwinana 21/3/06 9/03 20/11/1992

9/2007 27/09/06 Times 4

14/12/05* 22/10/04*

Mandurah 7/2/05* 21/71999 11/2006 4/11/02* 1/02

10/02 Times 4

Melville 21/4/06* 14/12/99 9/2007

5/5/05 5/5/05

25/8/05 2/3/04 5/7/06 24/6/02 23/7/07*

30/5/05* 5/05

Mosman Park 26/7/06

11/10/04 8/10/99 3/2007

Mundaring 27/4/04 18/3/94 8/2007 26/4/95 6/96 9/01

Murray 3/06 2004 23/6/89 10/2007 11/03

Nedlands 13/4/06 18/4/85 8/2007

12/3/02 2006

25/11/03 25/7/06 7/5/04 Unknown

12/05 11/00 12/00

Peppermint Grove

2/8/96 5/2005

Perth 6/1/05 9/1/2004 12/2007

28/4/98 ?

28/4/98 ?

27/4/01 26/11/02

20/5/91 26/11/02

? ?

20/4/04 11/05 17/5/02 5/06 12/04

19/9/03

Rockingham 4/04 19/11/04

4/2007 8/05 2005 Serpentine-Jarrahdale 2/03 4/8/89 4/04 8/04

3

9/2007

South Perth 2004 29/4/03 1/2007

4/05 25/10/05

25/4/05 5/05 5/05

25/10/05 12/05 2002 2006 2005

Stirling 5/5/06* 13/9/1985

8/2007

3/2/04 18/04/06

19/4/05 (?) 2006*

Subiaco 23/7/04* 23/3/01 10/2006 2005 2006

Swan 2003 1/7/04 9/12/85 2/2006

6/86 6/04

25/2/98 1/93 8/93

7/ 94 22/09/04

24/5/06 3/98 1/92 9/88 6/88 10/04

2004 1/99

16/7/03 23/3/04*

23/11/01* 19/11/01*

Victoria Park 7/06 30/9/98 7/2007 8/4/05 12/4/06

Vincent 2005 4/12/1998

7/2006

? ? ? ?

24/5/05 ? ? ?

26/10/04 21/2/06

26/10/04 4/11/03 22/7/03 4/11/03 22/4/03 2006 4/05

4

The red date in the Local Planning Scheme column is the Gazetted date, while the black date is the last time that DPI received an amendment and electronically updated it. Amendments do not replace all content within the scheme.

13/9/05 7/10/03 26/8/03

Wanneroo 2006 6/7/2001

8/2006

27/6/06 14/12/04

27/6/06 1/9/04 7/6/05

14/12/04 9/8/05

14/12/04 9/06

14/12/04

2005 2005 2005

5

Appendix 2 LUTI Content Analysis Template

LUTI Considerations Local Government: DOCUMENT: Date

Policy Statement

Positive/ Negative

Page Comments Rating

A ACCESS: 1 The Network Interconnectedness to urban system 2 Balance of access - through-travel and travel to

3 Choice of transport options in close proximity 4 Activity function

Highly connected street network focussed on access to centres and transit stops

5 Well designed walkable catchments 6 High quality pedestrian experience 6a arterial roads have safe pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes 7 Traffic

Management Lower traffic speeds,

8 Moderate traffic volumes, 9 Narrower streets 10 Effective traffic management 11 pedestrian priority 12 Service Integrated transport - easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these mode 13 In operational terms – timetabling;, , efficient public transport service to many destinations 14 In operational terms – easy to navigate system, 15 In operational terms – high frequency 16 In operational terms – reliable 17 In operational terms – efficient public transport service to many destinations 18 Safe, secure, convenient and comfortable stations, stops and interchanges 19 Accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc

20 Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity

21 Good business servicing opportunities LU LAND USE: 1 Land use

configuration Land use integrated with integrated transport

2 A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use.

3 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts

6

4 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses and within buildings 5 High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close

proximity of transit stop;

6 Buildings oriented to station/streets/paths; 7 Active ground floor uses for surveillance; 8 Frontage development – human scale. 9 Density/Intensity

Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types);

10 Medium to high residential densities; 11 Proximity Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity

(walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop;

12 More intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses (measured by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities.

13 Parking car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromised;

14 parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites; 15 car parking behind buildings not fronting street 16 Street parking 17 short-term parking but limited commuter parking; 18 Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good

car access.

PP ‘PEOPLE PLACES’

1 Scale and Design human scale – less demand for 70kph scale advertising, more sense that cars are not the priority mode;

2 integration of character and scale of development within precinct; 3 respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment); 4 diversity of architectural styles; 5 Legible design – is easily understood for residents and visitors. 6 Amenity High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right. 7 Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly. 8 Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art. 9 More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport. 10 Busy places.

7

Appendix 3 Example Content Analysis – City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

LUTI Considerations Local Government: CITY OF FREMANTLE DOCUMENT: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME No. 4 Date 8 MARCH 2007

Policy Statement Positive/ Negative

Page Comments Rating

A ACCESS: 1 The Network Interconnectedness to urban system 2 Balance of access -

through-travel and travel to

3 Choice of transport options in close proximity

(o) reduce reliance on, and the impact of, private motor vehicles,

positive 763 +1

4 Activity function

Highly connected street network focussed on access to centres and transit stops

5 Well designed walkable catchments 6 High quality pedestrian experience 6a arterial roads have safe pedestrian facilities,

on-road cycle lanes

7 Traffic Management Lower traffic speeds, 8 Moderate traffic volumes, 9 Narrower streets 10 Effective traffic management (m) promote management of regional traffic that contributes

positively to the community and landscape and minimises the impact of regional traffic flows, 6.5 O’Connor Industrial Interface Area 6.5.1 Purpose (e) To prevent, as far as practicable, the intrusion of commercial and industrial traffic into residential streets. 6.5.4 In considering applications for industrial and commercial buildings Council shall have regard to all of the following— design of vehicle ingress / egress to minimise traffi impacts including intrusion of commercial vehicles into adjoining residential streets, 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and

Positive Positive Positive

763 786 786

+1 +1 +1

8

may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (x) whether the proposed means of access to and egress from the site are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles, (y) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety, (z) whether a road or right-of-way needs to be created or enlarged to service the proposed development, in which case the Council may require the dedication of such road or right-of way,

Positive 792 +1

11 pedestrian priority 12 Service Integrated transport - easily accessible by all

modes and interchange between these mode

(h) ensure that urban development can be adequately and efficiently serviced, (b) ensure the community has access to an adequate range of services and facilities, (q) encourage the use of public transport and promote Fremantle as a major public transport node,

Positive Positive Positive

763 763 763

+1 +1 +1

13 In operational terms – timetabling;, , efficient public transport service to many destinations

10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (za) whether public transport services are necessary and, if so, whether they are available and adequate for the proposal,

Positive 792 +1

14 In operational terms – easy to navigate system,

15 In operational terms – high frequency 16 In operational terms – reliable 17 In operational terms – efficient public

transport service to many destinations

18 Safe, secure, convenient and comfortable stations, stops and interchanges

19 Accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc

(s) ensure universal access to buildings, spaces, services and facilities for all people,

Positive

764

+1

9

10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (zd) whether adequate provision has been made for access by persons with disabilities,

Positive

792

+1

20 Cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity

(r) promote and enhance the pedestrian and cycling transport modes, 5.7 Vehicle Parking—All Use Classes 5.7.1 (a) Subject to clause 5.7.2, a person shall not use land for a purpose specified in Table 3 unless car parking spaces, delivery bays and bicycle racks of the number specified in Table 3 are provided and sealed, drained and marked to the Council’s specifications prior to occupancy of development or commencement of a use and maintained to the satisfaction of Council thereafter. 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (zc) whether adequate provision has been made for access for pedestrians and cyclists (including end of trip storage, toilet and shower facilities),

Positive Positive Positive

764 775 792

+1 +2 +1

21 Good business servicing opportunities LU LAND USE: 1 Land use

configuration Land use integrated with integrated transport

(n) integrate planning for land use and transport to achieve sustainable urban development, 5.3.4 Split Density Codes Where a site is identified as having a split density coding and is connected to reticulated sewerage, the higher code may only be applied where one or more of the following specific requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of Council— (c) buildings designed in accordance with Council’s energy efficiency and sustainability schedule,

Positive Positive

763 774

+1 +2

10

2 A robust urban form – Can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use.

(k) ensure urban form and development contribute to sustainability (environmental, social/cultural and economic),

Positive 763 +1

3 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses within precincts

Development within the city centre zone shall— (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and Development within the local centre zone shall— (i) provide for weekly and convenience retailing including small-scale shops, showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms, entertainment, residential (at upper levels), recreation, open spaces, local offices, cottage industry, health, welfare and community facilities which serve the local community, consistent with the local—serving role of the centre, Development within the mixed use zone shall— (i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (ie. showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation, Development within the commercial zone shall— (i) provide for the development of offices and associated commercial and larger scale uses, including showrooms, and warehouses and uses requiring outdoor displays, 5.4.3 Home Occupation, Home Business Application— (a) No person shall commence a home occupation or home business without first having applied for and received the planning approval of the Council. (b) A home occupation or home business approval is issued to the owner of the land and is not transferable. (c) On the sale of the property or change in ownership of the land subject of the home occupation or home business entitlement to this use ceases. 8.2 Permitted Development

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

768 768 769 769 774

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

11

Except as otherwise provided in the Scheme, for the purposes of the Scheme the following development does not require the planning approval of the Council— (c) a home office,

Positive

788

+1

4 Greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses and within buildings

5 High pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity of transit stop;

Development within the neighbourhood centre zone shall— (i) provide for the daily and convenience retailing, shops, café, office, administration and residential uses (at upper levels) which serve the local community and are located within and compatible with residential areas, 5.2.5 Residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, contingent on the ground floor development being restricted to non-residential uses and the residential uses being restricted to the first floor and above.

Positive 769 773

+1 +2

6 Buildings oriented to station/streets/paths; 7 Active ground floor uses for surveillance; 8 Frontage development – human scale. 9 Density/Intensity

Highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types);

Development within the local centre zone shall (ii) encourage the provision of suitable and accessible services to residents of the locality, 6.5 O’Connor Industrial Interface Area 6.5.1 Purpose (c) To ensure the development of the South Street Local Centre as a vibrant community hub that serves the day-to-day needs of nearby residents.

Positive Positive

768 785

+1 +1

10 Medium to high residential densities; (c) provide greater housing choice to cater for a diverse and sustainable population, Development within the residential zone shall— (i) provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character, 5.2.4 Except in the Residential Development zone, where there is no Residential Design Code density applicable to land within the Scheme area, the provisions of clause 4.3 of the Residential Design Codes shall be applied as relevant.

Positive Positive Positive

763 768 773

+1 +1 +2

12

8.2 Permitted Development Except as otherwise provided in the Scheme, for the purposes of the Scheme the following development does not require the planning approval of the Council— (b) the erection on a lot of ancillary outbuildings and swimming pools, except where— (i) the proposal requires the exercise of a discretion by the Council under the Scheme to vary the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, (ii) the development will be located in a heritage area designated under the Scheme,

Positive

788

+1

11 Proximity Compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity (walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop;

(v) promote the compatible use of land surrounding essential infrastructure.

Positive 764 +1

12 More intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses (measured by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities.

13 Parking car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not compromised;

5.7.6 Design and Layout of Parking Areas Council shall have regard to all of the following in the location, design and construction of parking areas and associated access areas— (i) layout and access lanes consistent with the Australian Standard for parking facilities & offstreet car parking, (ii) the protection and enhancement of the streetscape including street trees, (iii) the provision of landscaping for screening and shade, (iv) the design and construction standards proposed for paving, drainage, line marking, signage, lighting and other relevant matters, (v) the provision for pedestrian movement within and around the parking area, (vi) the measures proposed to enhance the security of people using the parking area, (vii) the provision of parking facilities for cyclists and the disabled, (viii) end of trip facilities for cyclists, and (viii) the ease and safety with which vehicles gain access to the site and circulate within the parking area. Note: Reference to Australian standard in Scheme re layout and design.

Positive 779 +3

14 parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites;

5.7 Vehicle Parking—All Use Classes 5.7.

Negative

775

-2

13

(b) Where the floor area occupied by an existing use is increased, the parking requirement will be calculated on the basis of the floor area of the extension only or the area subject to the change of use of the site provided the existing number of car spaces is not reduced. (c) Where vehicle parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by the Council. Note requirement for sealing and draining of bays prior to occupancy. 5.7.3 Relaxation of Parking Requirements Council may— (a) Subject to the requirements of Schedule 12*, waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following— (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces, (iv) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land, (v) legal arrangements have been made in accordance with clause 5.7.4 for the parking or shared use of parking areas which are in the opinion of the Council satisfactory, (vi) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use that existed before the change of parking requirement, (vi) the proposal involves the restoration of a heritage building or retention of a tree or trees worthy of preservation, (viii) any other relevant considerations. Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause. 5.7.4 Cash Payment in Lieu of Providing Car Parking Spaces The Council may require a cash payment in lieu of the provision of paved car parking spaces, subject to—

Positive Positive

778 778

+2 +3

14

(a) a cash-in-lieu payment shall be not less than the estimated cost to the owner of providing and constructing the car parking spaces required by the Scheme including variations thereto. (b) the Council having adopted a local planning policy pursuant to clause 2.6 detailing the costs for the provision of car parking in that local planning area and detailing the purposes to which the funds are to be allocated, (c) payments under this clause shall be paid into a special fund to be used to provide public car parking stations within the locality from which it was collected or for the provision of transport infrastructure (which includes, but is not limited to, infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport uses and users) in accordance with a Local Planning Policy adopted under Part 2 as a Transport Infrastructure Strategy. Note: Modification of clauses related to cash in lieu of parking. Clear linkage to Transport and Infrastructure Study. 5.7.5 Joint Use of Car Parking Facilities (a) Car parking facilities may be provided jointly by two or more owners or users of land or by one owner or user in respect of separate buildings or uses, subject to the satisfaction of the standards and requirements hereinafter set out in this clause. (b) If there is a deficiency in the number of car parking spaces provided to serve any building or use, the Council may permit the car parking spaces for that building or use to be provided jointly with any one or more other buildings or uses whether or not those others separately have the prescribed number of car parking spaces provided that the peak hours of operation of the buildings or uses so sharing are different and do not substantially overlap. This clause potentially enables use of under-utilised public parking areas for nearby developments. Note: This clause potentially enables use of under-utilised public parking areas for nearby developments. 8 March 2007 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, WA 779 (c) The Council shall require that enduring reciprocal access and circulation arrangements are provided for any buildings or uses affected by this clause

Positive

778/ 779

+3

15

when, in the opinion of the Council, such arrangements are deemed necessary to improve design, functionality or amenity. (d) The following requirements shall be complied with by any person seeking to comply with the provisions of this clause— (i) evidence shall be provided sufficient to satisfy the Council that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of operation of the buildings or uses for which the joint use of car parking spaces or the reciprocal access and circulation arrangements is proposed, and (ii) the number of car parking spaces which may be credited from one building or use to another building or use, shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be in excess of the requirement of the second building or use during its -peak hours of operation. Note: Aim of section to provide greater flexibility in terms of car parking provision.

15 car parking behind buildings not fronting street

16 Street parking

5.7.3 Relaxation of Parking Requirements Council may— (a) Subject to the requirements of Schedule 12*, waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following— (i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking,

Positive 778 +3

17 short-term parking but limited commuter parking;

18 Car-based retailing (drive-thru’) and light industry located on periphery of town with good car access.

(p) reduce the demand for, and balance the provision of parking, to ensure convenient access while promoting economic, environmental and social sustainability,

Positive 763 +1

PP ‘PEOPLE PLACES’ 1 Scale and Design human scale – less demand for 70kph scale

advertising, more sense that cars are not the priority mode;

2 integration of character and scale of development within precinct;

(i) ensure that compatible land uses are achieved adjacent to or where specified, within Special Control Areas. Development within the residential zone shall—

Positive Positive

763 768

+1 +1

16

(iii) encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognise the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites, Development within the local centre zone shall (iii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties, and Note objective (iii) derived from Part 4.1, A 5.4 of Fremantle Planning Strategy. Development within the mixed use zone shall— (ii) ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area, 5.3.3.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of the R Codes, in a Local Area Policy Area in order to maintain amenity, traditional built forms or streetscapes, Council may exercise its discretion to— (a) vary the required minimum distance between buildings in different occupancies on the same lot, where in the interests of maintaining amenity, traditional built forms or streetscapes, the Council is satisfied that such a variation is desirable; 5.3.3.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of the R Codes, in a Local Area Policy Area in order to maintain amenity, traditional built forms or streetscapes, Council may exercise its discretion to— (b) vary the open space requirement within a heritage area where, in the opinion of Council, one or more of the following circumstances apply— (i) the subject lot is below 400 square metres in area, (ii) the open space requirements would prevent a reasonable extension of an existing building, (iii) the proposed development has been designed to reflect and reinforce the building style of the immediate vicinity, or (iv) where, in a particular case, the interests of visual amenity would be better served by permitting a variation. 6.5.4 In considering applications for industrial and commercial buildings Council shall have regard to all of the following—

Positive Positive Positive Positive

768 769 774 774

+1 +1 +2 +2

17

materials and finishes to complement the visual amenity o the area. 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting, (s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings, (w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,

Positive Positive Positive

786 791 791

+1 +1 +1

3 respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic redevelopment);

(f) protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage, (g) ensure all development complements and contributes to the community’s desired identity and character for Fremantle, Development within the residential zone shall— (ii) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area, Development within the residential zone shall— (v) conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development, and Development within the residential zone shall— (vi) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area. Development within the city centre zone shall—

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

763 763 768 768 768 768

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

18

(iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development. Development within the local centre zone shall— (iv) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development. Development within the neighbourhood centre zone shall— (ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and Development within the neighbourhood centre zone shall— (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development. Note objective (iii) derived from Part 4.2, B1.1 of Fremantle Planning Strategy. Development within the mixed use zone shall (iii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and Development within the mixed use zone shall (iv) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development. Note objective (iv) derived from Part 4.2 B1.1 of Fremantle Planning Strategy. Development within the commercial zone shall— (ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and Development within the commercial zone shall (iii) to conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development. Note objective derived from Part 4.1, A5.4 Fremantle Planning Strategy. 5.3.4 Split Density Codes Where a site is identified as having a split density coding and is connected to reticulated sewerage, the higher code may only be applied where one or more of the following specific requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of Council— (a) a building of cultural heritage significance is retained on the lot,

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

768 769 769 769 769 769 769 774

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2

19

5.8 Variations to site and development standards and requirements 5.8.1 Variation to height requirements Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following— (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, 5.8 Variations to site and development standards and requirements 5.8.1 Variation to height requirements Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following— (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and 5.8.2 Variation to Plot Ratio and Site Coverage Requirements Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a plot ratio or site coverage greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following— (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, (b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and 5.8.4 The power conferred by clauses 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 may only be exercised if the Council is satisfied that— (b) the non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality. 6.5 O’Connor Industrial Interface Area 6.5.1 Purpose (a) To retain the O’Connor Industrial area as a strategic industrial area for Fremantle and the

Positive Positive Positive Positive

779 779 779 780

+2 +2 +2 +1

20

South-West metropolitan region and to ensure that development contributes to high standard of amenity and design as well as compatibility with adjacent residential uses. (b) To retain existing residential areas as predominantly low density residential, with access to suitable open space and protection of amenity from adjoining industrial uses. 7.1 Heritage List 7.1.1 The Council is to establish and maintain a Heritage List to identify those places within the Scheme area which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme, together with a description of each place and the reasons for its entry. Note: The Municipal Heritage Inventory established under the previous town planning scheme is to comprise the heritage list under this scheme, in accordance with the provisions of clause 7.1.7. 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (h) the conservation of any place that has been entered in the Register within the meaning of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or which is included in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, and the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the heritage area,

Positive Positive Positive

785 786 791

+1 +3 +1

4 diversity of architectural styles; 5 Legible design – is easily understood for

residents and visitors.

6 Amenity High amenity precincts – a place you want to go to – a destination in its own right.

(h) develop diverse and attractive local centres that provide a community focus for neighbourhood areas, (i) develop a diverse and attractive city centre that functions as a town centre and a regional centre, 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning

Positive Positive

763 791

+1 +1

21

approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality,

7 Community/neighbourly feel – mixed ages – family friendly.

(a) accommodate a diverse mix of people, cultures and lifestyles, (d) ensure development promotes a sense of community and encourages participation in community life, (t) facilitate and encourage effective public involvement in planning issues of significance to the character, amenity and environmental attributes of the City, and 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (j) any social issues that have an effect on the amenity of the locality, (k) the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development, including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation or recording (by means including public art works) and significant cultural values of the site,

Positive Positive Positive Positive

763 763 764 791

+1 +1 +1 +1

8 Good ‘people places’ – public open space, public seating, public art.

(l) provide safe and accessible open spaces, (u) recognise and preserve the traditional setting of existing dwellings including curtilage, garden areas and open space. (a) Open Space To provide for recreational, community, beautification and conservation activities. (b) Community Facilities To provide for civic and community activities and facilities that are provided for the general community by public institutions and groups. 6.5.4 In considering applications for industrial and

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

763 764 765 765 786

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

22

commercial buildings Council shall have regard toall of the following— high standard of landscaping 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application— (ze) whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the planning application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved including adjacent verge trees, Note: reference to verge trees.

Positive

792

+1

9 More social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport.

(e) promote a safe and healthy environment, Positive 763 +1

10 Busy places.

23

Appendix 4: Local Government Profiles

(Source: http://www.councils.wa.gov.au/directory/council_websites/)

Local government

Location Population Number of Employees

Date local planning scheme was first drafted

Date of local planning strategy (if Present

Date of Local transport strategy (if Present

Date of Local Bike Plan (if present

Sustainable Transport Coalition Membership

Armadale Outer 50535 298 2005 2005 No Bassendean Middle 13463 112 1983 2008 Yes Bayswater Middle 55801 311 2004 No Belmont Middle 30331 175 1999 1999 No Cambridge Middle 23753 86 1998 No Canning Middle 77305 395 1994 2001 1999 No Claremont Inner 8942 42 1999 No Cockburn Middle 74472 330 2002 1999 Yes Cottesloe Inner 7256 38 1998 No East Fremantle Inner 6697 45 2004 2004 No Fremantle Inner 24835 422 2007 2007 2007 2003 No Gosnells Outer 91579 470 2002 No Joondalup Outer 149673 500 2000 No Kalamunda Outer 49534 176 2007 No Kwinana Outer 23198 103 1992 1992 No Mandurah Outer 55815 160 1999 Yes Melville Middle 93003 454 1999 1998 Yes Mosman Park Inner 8251 44 1999 No Mundaring Outer 35097 145 1994 No Murray Outer 11969 67 1989 No Nedlands Inner 20335 124 1985 2006 Yes Peppermint Grove Inner 1580 18 1996 No Perth Inner 11573 480 2004 Yes Rockingham Outer 84307 307 2004 2007 2007 No Serpentine-Jarrahdale Outer 12889 68 1989 No South Perth Outer 39361 206 2003 2006 Yes Stirling Middle 176872 789 1985 Yes Subiaco Inner 16380 133 2001 2007 Yes Swan Outer 93279 442 1985 Yes Victoria Park Inner 27955 137 1998 No Vincent Inner 26878 183 1998 No Wanneroo Outer 110940 490 2001 No

24

Appendix 5: Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by positive, negative or mixed reference to LUTI Criteria

State Policy Documents - Strategic A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

State Planning Strategy 1 1 1 1 1 1

Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Network City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MetroPlan 1990 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

State Policy Documents - Statutory

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Liveable Neighbourhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning 3 1 1 1

WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Local Planning Schemes

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bayswater 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

Belmont 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cambridge 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Canning 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Claremont 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

25

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Gosnells 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Joondalup 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kalamunda 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1

Kwinana 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

Mandurah 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Melville 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mosman Park 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1

Mundaring 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Murray 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nedlands 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Peppermint Grove 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

Perth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Stirling 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Swan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Victoria Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Vincent 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Local Planning Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Armadale 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bassendean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cottesloe 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kwinana 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1

26

Local Transport Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nedlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

South Perth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Local Bike Plans

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Canning 1 1 1 1 1

Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1

Melville 1 1

Rockingham 1 1 1

Key Document includes one or more statements that meet LUTI Criterion Document includes one or more statements that work against the LUTI criterion Document includes some statements that meet LUTI criterion and some that work against it

27

Appendix 6 Summary of Perth state and local policy document analysis by highest rating score for each LUTI criterion

State Policy Documents - Strategic

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 State Planning Strategy 2 2 1 2 2 1 Metropolitan Transport Strategy 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 Network City 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 MetroPlan 1990 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 -1 2 3 1 2 2 State Policy Documents - Statutory A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Liveable Neighbourhoods 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 WAPC SPP 3 Urban Growth Settlement 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 WAPC DC 1.5 Bicycle Planning 2 1 2 3 WAPC DC 1.6 TOD 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 WAPC DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Local Planning Schemes

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Armadale 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 Bassendean 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 -2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Bayswater 2 2 -2 -1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 -2 2 2 -3 3 3 2 1 3 Belmont 2 1 -2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 Cambridge 1 1 -2 1 -1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 Canning 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 -3 -3 2 3 1 -2 2 2 2 Claremont -3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 -3 2 2 -2 -2 3 3 3 3 2 2 Cockburn 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 Cottesloe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 East Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 Fremantle 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 Gosnells 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 Joondalup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kalamunda 1 2 3 1 1 -1 2 2 -3 1 3 -2 2 1 Kwinana 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 -1 2 1 1 2 2 Mandurah 1 1 1 1 2 -1 -3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 -1 -1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 Melville 3 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 Mosman Park -1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 -1 -1 2 -1 1 1 3 1 1 Mundaring 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -2 -1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 Murray 1 1 -1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Nedlands 1 -1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 -1 1 1 1 Peppermint Grove 1 1 -3 1 -2 1 3 1 1 Perth 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 Rockingham 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 Serpentine-Jarrahdale 1 1 3 -1 2 3 -2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 South Perth 1 1 2 -1 2 2 -1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 Stirling 1 1 3 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 -3 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 Subiaco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 -1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 Swan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 -1 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 Victoria Park 1 1 1 2 3 2 -2 1 1 Vincent -1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 -2 1 1 1

28

Wanneroo 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 Local Planning Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Armadale 2 1 1 1 2 2 -1 2 0 3 1 2 1 2 -1 2 -1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Bassendean 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 Cockburn 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 Cottesloe 1 1 -1 -1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 -1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 East Fremantle 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 -1 2 Fremantle 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 -1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Kwinana 1 2 1 2 1 -1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 Local Transport Strategies

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Fremantle 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Nedlands 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 Rockingham 2 1 -1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 South Perth 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Subiaco 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 Local Bike Plans A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Canning 3 2 3 2 3 Fremantle 3 2 1 3 2 3 Melville 3 2 Rockingham 2 1 1

Key 3 Strongly meets LUTI criterion 2 Meets LUTI criterion 1 Weakly meets LUTI criterion

0 Neither meets nor works against LUTI criterion

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion -2 Works against LUTI criterion -3 Strongly works against LUTi criterion

29

Appendix 7 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning

schemes by location

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI Access Critera (n=21) in Local Planning Schemes by LGA location (inner, middle, outer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Clarem

ont (I

)Cott

esloe

(I)

East F

reman

tle(I)

Freman

tle(I)

Mosman

Park

(I)Ned

lands

(I)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (I)

Perth (

I)Sub

iaco (

I)

Victori

a Park

(I)Vinc

ent (I

)

Basse

ndea

n (M)

Baysw

ater (

M)Belm

ont (M

)

Cambri

dge (

M)Can

ning (

M)

Cockb

urn (M

)Melv

ille (M

)

South

Perth (

M) Stirl

ing (M

)

Armad

ale(O

)Gos

nells

(O)

Joon

dalup

(O)

Kalamun

da (O

)

Kwinana

(O)

Mandu

rah (O

)

Munda

ring (

O)Murr

ay (O

)

Rockin

gham

(O)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(O)

Swan (O

)

Wan

neroo

(O)

LGA (I=innter, M=middle, O=outer)

posnegmix

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI Landuse Critera in Local Planning Schemes by LGA location (inner, middle, outer)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clarem

ont (I

)

Cottes

loe(I)

East F

reman

tle(I)

Freman

tle(I)

Mosman

Park

(I)

Nedlan

ds (I)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (I)

Perth (

I)

Subiac

o (I)

Victori

a Park

(I)

Vincen

t (I)

Basse

ndea

n (M)

Baysw

ater (

M)

Belmon

t (M)

Cambri

dge (

M)

Cannin

g (M)

Cockb

urn (M

)

Melville

(M)

South

Perth (

M)

Stirling

(M)

Armad

ale(O

)

Gosne

lls(O)

Joon

dalup

(O)

Kalamun

da (O

)

Kwinana

(O)

Mandu

rah (O

)

Munda

ring (

O)

Murray

(O)

Rockin

gham

(O)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(O)

Swan (O

)

Wan

neroo

(O)

LGA (I=inner, M=Middle, O=outer)

PosNegMix

30

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI People Places Critera in Local Planning

Schemes by LGA location (inner, middle, outer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Clarem

ont (I

)

Cottes

loe(I)

East F

reman

tle(I)

Freman

tle(I)

Mosman

Park

(I)

Nedlan

ds (I)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (I)

Perth (

I)

Subiac

o (I)

Victori

a Park

(I)

Vincen

t (I)

Basse

ndea

n (M)

Baysw

ater (

M)

Belmon

t (M)

Cambri

dge (

M)

Cannin

g (M)

Cockb

urn (M

)

Melville

(M)

South

Perth (

M)

Stirling

(M)

Armad

ale(O

)

Gosne

lls(O)

Joon

dalup

(O)

Kalamun

da (O

)

Kwinana

(O)

Mandu

rah (O

)

Munda

ring (

O)

Murray

(O)

Rockin

gham

(O)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(O)

Swan (O

)

Wan

neroo

(O)

LGA (I=Inner, M=Middle, O=Outer)

PosNegMix

31

Appendix 8 Representation of LUTI criteria in local government planning

schemes by LGA population

Number of positve, negative, mixed reference to LUTI access critera by LGA population

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (15

80)

East F

reman

tle (6

697)

Cottes

loe (7

256)

Mosman

Park

(825

1)

Clarem

ont (8

942)

Perth (

1157

3)

Murray

(119

69)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1288

9)

Basse

ndea

n (13

463)

Subiac

o (16

380)

Nedlan

ds (2

0335

)

Kwinana

(231

98)

Cambri

dge (

2375

3)

Freman

tle (2

4835

)

Vincen

t (268

76)

Victori

a Park

(279

55)

Belmon

t (303

31)

Munda

ring (

3509

7)

South

Perth (

3936

1)

Kalamun

da (4

9534

)

Armad

ale (5

0535

)

Baysw

ater (

5580

1)

Mandu

rah (5

5815

)

Cockb

urn (7

4472

)

Cannin

g (77

305)

Rockin

gham

(843

07)

Gosne

lls (91

579)

Melville

(930

03)

Swan (9

3279

)

Wan

neroo

(110

940)

Joon

dalup

(149

673)

Stirling

(176

872)

LGA (population)

posnegmix

Number of positive, negative, mixed reference to LUTI land use criteria by LGA population

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (15

80)

East F

reman

tle (6

697)

Cottes

loe (7

256)

Mosman

Park

(825

1)

Clarem

ont (8

942)

Perth (

1157

3)

Murray

(119

69)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1288

9)

Basse

ndea

n (13

463)

Subiac

o (16

380)

Nedlan

ds (2

0335

)

Kwinana

(231

98)

Cambri

dge (

2375

3)

Freman

tle (2

4835

)

Vincen

t (268

76)

Victori

a Park

(279

55)

Belmon

t (303

31)

Munda

ring (

3509

7)

South

Perth (

3936

1)

Kalamun

da (4

9534

)

Armad

ale (5

0535

)

Baysw

ater (

5580

1)

Mandu

rah (5

5815

)

Cockb

urn (7

4472

)

Cannin

g (77

305)

Rockin

gham

(843

07)

Gosne

lls (91

579)

Melville

(930

03)

Swan (9

3279

)

Wan

neroo

(110

940)

Joon

dalup

(149

673)

Stirling

(176

872)

LGA (population)

PosNegMix

32

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI people places criteria by LGA population

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (15

80)

East F

reman

tle (6

697)

Cottes

loe (7

256)

Mosman

Park

(825

1)

Clarem

ont (8

942)

Perth (

1157

3)

Murray

(119

69)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1288

9)

Basse

ndea

n (13

463)

Subiac

o (16

380)

Nedlan

ds (2

0335

)

Kwinana

(231

98)

Cambri

dge (

2375

3)

Freman

tle (2

4835

)

Vincen

t (268

76)

Victori

a Park

(279

55)

Belmon

t (303

31)

Munda

ring (

3509

7)

South

Perth (

3936

1)

Kalamun

da (4

9534

)

Armad

ale (5

0535

)

Baysw

ater (

5580

1)

Mandu

rah (5

5815

)

Cockb

urn (7

4472

)

Cannin

g (77

305)

Rockin

gham

(843

07)

Gosne

lls (91

579)

Melville

(930

03)

Swan (9

3279

)

Wan

neroo

(110

940)

Joon

dalup

(149

673)

Stirling

(176

872)

LGA (population)

PosNegMix

33

Appendix 9 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning

schemes by number of employees

Number of positive, negative, and mixed references to LUTI access criteria by number of employees

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (18

)

Cottes

loe (3

8)

Clarem

ont (4

2)

Mosman

Park

(44)

East F

reman

tle (4

5)

Murray

(67)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(68)

Cambri

dge (

86)

Kwinana

(103

)

Basse

ndea

n (11

2)

Nedlan

ds (1

24)

Subiac

o (13

3)

Victori

a Park

(137

)

Munda

ring (

145)

Mandu

rah (1

60)

Belmon

t (175

)

Kalamun

da (1

76)

Vincen

t (183

)

South

Perth (

206)

Armad

ale (2

98)

Rockin

gham

(307

)

Baysw

ater(3

11)

Cockb

urn (3

30)

Cannin

g (39

5)

Freman

tle (4

22)

Swan (4

42)

Melville

(454

)

Gosne

lls (47

0)

Perth (

480)

Wan

neroo

(490

)

Joon

dalup

(500

)

Stirling

(789

)

LGA (number of employees)

posnegmix

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI land use criteria by number of employees

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (18

)

Cottes

loe (3

8)

Clarem

ont (4

2)

Mosman

Park

(44)

East F

reman

tle (4

5)

Murray

(67)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(68)

Cambri

dge (

86)

Kwinana

(103

)

Basse

ndea

n (11

2)

Nedlan

ds (1

24)

Subiac

o (13

3)

Victori

a Park

(137

)

Munda

ring (

145)

Mandu

rah (1

60)

Belmon

t (175

)

Kalamun

da (1

76)

Vincen

t (183

)

South

Perth (

206)

Armad

ale (2

98)

Rockin

gham

(307

)

Baysw

ater(3

11)

Cockb

urn (3

30)

Cannin

g (39

5)

Freman

tle (4

22)

Swan (4

42)

Melville

(454

)

Gosne

lls (47

0)

Perth (

480)

Wan

neroo

(490

)

Joon

dalup

(500

)

Stirling

(789

)

LGA (number of employees)

PosNegMix

34

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI people places criteria by number of employees

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (18

)

Cottes

loe (3

8)

Clarem

ont (4

2)

Mosman

Park

(44)

East F

reman

tle (4

5)

Murray

(67)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(68)

Cambri

dge (

86)

Kwinana

(103

)

Basse

ndea

n (11

2)

Nedlan

ds (1

24)

Subiac

o (13

3)

Victori

a Park

(137

)

Munda

ring (

145)

Mandu

rah (1

60)

Belmon

t (175

)

Kalamun

da (1

76)

Vincen

t (183

)

South

Perth (

206)

Armad

ale (2

98)

Rockin

gham

(307

)

Baysw

ater(3

11)

Cockb

urn (3

30)

Cannin

g (39

5)

Freman

tle (4

22)

Swan (4

42)

Melville

(454

)

Gosne

lls (47

0)

Perth (

480)

Wan

neroo

(490

)

Joon

dalup

(500

)

Stirling

(789

)

LGA (number of employees)

PosNegMix

35

Appendix 10 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning

schemes by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

Number of positive, negative and mixed reference to LUTI Access Critera by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Basse

ndea

n(198

3)

Nedlan

ds (1

985)

Stirling

(198

5)

Swan (1

985)

Murray

1989

)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1989

)

Kwinana

(199

2)

Cannin

g (19

94)

Munda

ring (

1994

)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (19

96)

Cottes

loe (1

998)

Victori

a Park

(199

8)

Vincen

t (199

8)

Cambri

dge (

1998

)

Clarem

ont (1

999)

Mosman

Park

(199

9)

Belmon

t (199

9)

Melville

(199

9)

Mandu

rah (1

999)

Joon

dalup

(200

0)

Subiac

o (20

01)

Wan

neroo

(200

1)

Cockb

urn (2

002)

Gosne

lls (20

02)

South

Perth (

2003

)

East F

reman

tle (2

004)

Perth (

2004

)

Baysw

ater (

2004

)

Rockin

gham

(200

4)

Armad

ale (2

005)

Freman

tle (2

007)

Kalamun

da (2

007)

LGA (year scheme drafted)

posnegmix

36

Number of positive, negative and mixed reference to LUTI Land Use critera by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Basse

ndea

n(198

3)

Nedlan

ds (1

985)

Stirling

(198

5)

Swan (1

985)

Murray

1989

)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1989

)

Kwinana

(199

2)

Cannin

g (19

94)

Munda

ring (

1994

)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (19

96)

Cottes

loe (1

998)

Victori

a Park

(199

8)

Vincen

t (199

8)

Cambri

dge (

1998

)

Clarem

ont (1

999)

Mosman

Park

(199

9)

Belmon

t (199

9)

Melville

(199

9)

Mandu

rah (1

999)

Joon

dalup

(200

0)

Subiac

o (20

01)

Wan

neroo

(200

1)

Cockb

urn (2

002)

Gosne

lls (20

02)

South

Perth (

2003

)

East F

reman

tle (2

004)

Perth (

2004

)

Baysw

ater (

2004

)

Rockin

gham

(200

4)

Armad

ale (2

005)

Freman

tle (2

007)

Kalamun

da (2

007)

LGA (year scheme drafted)

PosNegMix

Number of positive, negative and mixed reference to LUTI People places critera by year in which the local planning scheme was first drafted

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Basse

ndea

n(198

3)

Nedlan

ds (1

985)

Stirling

(198

5)

Swan (1

985)

Murray

1989

)

Serpen

tine-J

arrah

dale

(1989

)

Kwinana

(199

2)

Cannin

g (19

94)

Munda

ring (

1994

)

Peppe

rmint

Grov

e (19

96)

Cottes

loe (1

998)

Victori

a Park

(199

8)

Vincen

t (199

8)

Cambri

dge (

1998

)

Clarem

ont (1

999)

Mosman

Park

(199

9)

Belmon

t (199

9)

Melville

(199

9)

Mandu

rah (1

999)

Joon

dalup

(200

0)

Subiac

o (20

01)

Wan

neroo

(200

1)

Cockb

urn (2

002)

Gosne

lls (20

02)

South

Perth (

2003

)

East F

reman

tle (2

004)

Perth (

2004

)

Baysw

ater (

2004

)

Rockin

gham

(200

4)

Armad

ale (2

005)

Freman

tle (2

007)

Kalamun

da (2

007)

LGA (year scheme drafted(

PosNegMix

37

Appendix 11 Representation of LUTI Criteria in local government planning

schemes by membership to the sustainable transport coalition

Number of positive, negative and mixed referenc to LUTI Access Critera by Sustainable Transport Coalition Membership

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Nedland

s (S

TC M

embe

r)

Perth

(STC

Mem

ber)

Subiac

o (S

TC M

embe

r)

Bass

ende

an (S

TC M

embe

r)

Cock

burn

(STC

Mem

ber)

Melvil

le (S

TC M

embe

r)

Sout

h Pe

rth (S

TC M

embe

r)

Stirling (S

TC M

embe

r)

Mandu

rah (S

TC M

embe

r)

Swan

(STC

Mem

ber)

Clar

emon

t

Cotte

sloe

East Fre

man

tle

Frem

antle

Mosman

Par

k

Pepp

erm

int G

rove

Victor

ia Par

k

Vinc

ent

Bays

water

Belm

ont

Cambr

idge

Cann

ing

Armad

ale

Gosne

lls

Joon

dalup

Kalamun

da

Kwinan

a

Munda

ring

Murra

y

Rock

ingh

am

Serp

entin

e-Ja

rrahd

ale

Wan

nero

o

LGA

posnegmix

38

Number of positive, negative and mixed references to LUTI Land use criteria by sustainable transport coalition membership

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nedland

s (S

TC M

embe

r)

Perth

(STC

Mem

ber)

Subiac

o (S

TC M

embe

r)

Bass

ende

an (S

TC M

embe

r)

Cock

burn

(STC

Mem

ber)

Melvil

le (S

TC M

embe

r)

Sout

h Pe

rth (S

TC M

embe

r)

Stirling (S

TC M

embe

r)

Mandu

rah (S

TC M

embe

r)

Swan

(STC

Mem

ber)

Clar

emon

t

Cotte

sloe

East Fre

man

tle

Frem

antle

Mosman

Par

k

Pepp

erm

int G

rove

Victor

ia Par

k

Vinc

ent

Bays

water

Belm

ont

Cambr

idge

Cann

ing

Armad

ale

Gosne

lls

Joon

dalup

Kalamun

da

Kwinan

a

Munda

ring

Murra

y

Rock

ingh

am

Serp

entin

e-Ja

rrahd

ale

Wan

nero

o

LGA

PosNegMix

Number of positive negative and mixed references to people places criteria by sustainable transport coalition membership

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Nedland

s (S

TC M

embe

r)

Perth

(STC

Mem

ber)

Subiac

o (S

TC M

embe

r)

Bass

ende

an (S

TC M

embe

r)

Cock

burn

(STC

Mem

ber)

Melvil

le (S

TC M

embe

r)

Sout

h Pe

rth (S

TC M

embe

r)

Stirling (S

TC M

embe

r)

Mandu

rah (S

TC M

embe

r)

Swan

(STC

Mem

ber)

Clar

emon

t

Cotte

sloe

East Fre

man

tle

Frem

antle

Mosman

Par

k

Pepp

erm

int G

rove

Victor

ia Par

k

Vinc

ent

Bays

water

Belm

ont

Cambr

idge

Cann

ing

Armad

ale

Gosne

lls

Joon

dalup

Kalamun

da

Kwinan

a

Munda

ring

Murra

y

Rock

ingh

am

Serp

entin

e-Ja

rrahd

ale

Wan

nero

o

LGA

PosNegMix