Comparative Analysis Of Planning Indicators Of Parramatta, NSW & Monash, Victoria

The report deals with the interpretation and evaluation of the local planning instruments of Australia. The comparison has been made between the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan, NSW and Monash Planning Scheme, Victoria.

The report starts with a brief introduction about the plans and the different planning instruments which are being compared in the report has been given. Then the analysis of both the instruments and comparisons between planning policies had been carried out. This part consist of aims and objectives, structure of the whole planning instrument, development control policies and the land use zoning and their land use maps.

The Monash Planning scheme lacks the linked search directory, as it is provided in the Parramatta Local Environment Plan, which adds a certain degree of difficulty for the readers in understanding the complex terminologies. As a programmatic document, Parramatta LEP is far less detailed than Monash scheme. The arrangement of the content is very user friendly and very easy to understand and find the relevant data. However, the separation of maps adds difficulty to reading. But the structure given at the starting of the indicator is very generalized and easy to understand and locate the data. Besides, they both have the dissimilar development plan, but compliments to their respective geography and deal with their particular environmental risks, such as Parramatta's flood, air noise, or the Monash’s subdivision of suburbs. Meanwhile, the local governments are doing their best to cater these problems.

Introduction

In Australia, each state has its own planning system, for e.g. NSW Legislation of New South Wales and Victoria planning system of Victoria. The overall development in Australia is done by following these planning systems. In this report planning instruments of two different states has been compared. The two cases compared are of Parramatta and Monash. Parramatta comes in New South Wales which has Local Environmental Plan and Monash comes in Victoria state which has Planning Scheme as their planning instruments. Local Environment Plans (LEP) and Victoria Planning Scheme guides the planning decisions for state government area. It is done by zoning and development controls for e.g. building heights, setback, subdivision lot size, floor space ratio etc., which defines a framework for how the land can be developed or used. These planning instruments are the main planning tools to shape the future of communities and they also monitors and ensures that the local development is carried out appropriately.

The main objective of the report is ‘Plan Interpretation And Evaluation’ of both the planning instruments. This report will be divided into three parts, as introduction, analysis & comparison and conclusion. In first part the brief about the sites and the different planning instruments which are being compared in the report has been given. Then in the second part analysis of both the instruments and comparisons between planning policies will be carried out. This part consist of aims and objectives, structure of the whole planning instrument, development control policies and the land use zoning and their land use maps. Third and the last part is conclusion and recommendation in which the basic understanding of both the planning instruments will be described. And general recommendations will be made.

Aims

Parramatta:

• This aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Parramatta in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument.
• To encourage a range of development, including housing, employment and recreation.
• To improve public access to the city.
• Conserve and promote Parramatta's natural and cultural heritage.
• Foster environmental, economic, social and physical wellbeing for balanced and sustainable city.
• To retain the predominant role of Parramatta's industrial areas.

Monash:

• To provide accommodation for a diverse population.
• To conserve and enhance places of cultural heritage significance.
• To increase the number and range of viable local employment opportunities.
• To facilitate and provide safe, efficient and effective access throughout the city.
• Economic prosperity, social advancement and environmental protection.

Objectives:

Parramatta:

• To minimize risk to the community in areas subject to environmental hazards, particularly flooding and bushfire, by restricting development in sensitive areas.
• To protect and enhance the natural environment, including areas of remnant bushland in Parramatta, by incorporating principles of ecologically sustainable development into land use controls.
• To improve public access to the city and facilitate the maximum use of improved public transport, together with walking and cycling.
• To improve public access along waterways where natural values will not be diminished.
• To encourage development that demonstrates efficient and sustainable use of energy and resources in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles.
• To ensure that development does not detract from the economic viability of Parramatta’s commercial centres.

Analysis And Comparison:

Monash:

• To promote the development and sustainable growth of Victoria.
• To uplift the provision of a variety of housing types and sizes which will accommodate future housing needs and preferences of the Monash community that complement and enhance the Garden City Character of the City
• To ensure that heritage precincts and dwellings are identified and conserved.
• To revitalize key areas and to ensure that the standard of new development is high which will help to increase the incoming business and to increase the garden city character.
• To encourage sustainable transport by ensuring that the major activity and neighborhood center are well connected by public transport and by promoting safe walking and cycling within the city.

Structure/Layout/Length

Parramatta:

• Status information
• Preliminary
• Permitted or prohibited development
• Exempt and complying development
• Principal development standards
• Miscellaneous provisions
• Local provisions- height and floor space
• Local provisions- general
• Dictionary
• Historical notes.

Monash:

• Preliminary
• A State Planning Policy Framework
• A Local Planning Policy Framework
• Zone and overlay provisions
• Overlay -Particularly provisions
• General provisions
• Definitions
• Incorporated documents
• Vic Smart planning assessment provisions.

After comparing the above structures of both the planning instruments, there are lots of structural differences in Parramatta LEP 2011 and the Monash planning scheme. Firstly, Parramatta LEP provides a very user friendly contents guide which is very practical and it also eases the readability of users. While the Monash planning scheme do not have a good contents guide which makes it a bit difficult to understand and find out the content you are looking for.

The Monash planning scheme is more detailed and has a lots of data when compared to Parramatta LEP, and it is very good if anyone wants to have in depth knowledge on planning policies. However, the Parramatta LEP is more generalized to the readers and it gives the crisp and accurate data, but it doesn't goes into depth as is the case with Monash planning scheme.

Comparing the contextual data in these two plans, the Monash planning scheme has the structure which takes you from general to very particularized content about the context, it also gives users a general introduction of local history and background which helps users to understand the reason behind the particular development policy but that is not the case with Parramatta LEP.

Relationship To Other States Or Local Policies

In New South Wales, under section 36 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this plan is subject to the provisions of any State environment planning policy (SEPP). However, land at Green Square or Ultimo-Pyrmont, or southern employment land do not apply to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing). In addition, Principal Local Environmental Plans (SLEP), as for the standard instrument, sets 34 standard zones, definitions and clauses for the NSW local environment Plans. As an outline document, many rules and regulations are embodied by distinct development control plan. Meanwhile, the Vitoria planning provisions (VPP) is a template for the structure and content of all plans in the state, establishing a standard format for the Victoria planning scheme, which is less complex and more contextual.

Principal Development Standards:

Based on the functions of different local buildings and the different direction of future development, two cities have made detailed regulations and plans for the development standards, for e.g. height of buildings, floor space ratio, subdivision pattern etc. Both planning instruments emphasizes on sustainable development based on the economy and environment, as they both have an important relationship with the physical space.

Both of them have the clear foresight. The Parramatta LEP integrates the content into an independent section, focusing on the architectural requirements corresponding to different locations and functions, which are relatively general, but the guiding role of the syllabus is prominent. The Monash scheme does not provide a separate chapter, but when the scheme introduces different land use zones, the detailed buildings development standards are attached to each and every type of building. The Monash scheme is be more detailed than Sydney LEP, and it is helpful for readers to read and understand the in-depth planning policies.

However, the Parramatta LEP is more generalized to the readers which makes it easier and quicker to gather information. The Monash Planning Scheme could be considered as a more detailed document. It has been organized well with detail information and development standards. In the Monash Planning Scheme, strategies on improving urban and regional conditions, like the affordable housing, heritage conservation, biodiversity, environment and landscape have been orderly proposed in the state and local planning policy framework, which is based on the sustainable development for amenity.

The Monash Planning Scheme logically shows more details, especially the guideline at the beginning of the scheme which all improve the readers' reading skills. However, it lacks the linked search directory such as the it is provided in the Parramatta Local Environment Plan, which adds a certain degree of difficulty to readers in understanding the complex terminologies. The accurate generalizations of the state and local regulations are also repeated in content. As per the vertical structure of the scheme up from the state to the local, it is classified and edited, and the logic and coherence are strong, but the content between the upper and lower levels is repeated, and lacks a certain integration between them which can be made.

Conversely, the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan provides an extended linked directory, which dramatically reduces the difficulty in understanding the difficult terminologies. However, as a programmatic document, Parramatta LEP is far less detailed than Monash scheme. The arrangement of the content is very user friendly and very easy to understand and find the relevant data. However, the separation of maps adds difficulty to reading. But the structure given at the starting of the indicator is very generalized and easy to understand and locate the data. According to the increasing trend of the local population in both cities.

Conclusion And Recommendations:

According to the increasing trend of the local population in both cities. With the higher density of city population, it is calls for a compact development model and a reasonable allocation of resources in cities, leading to two plans to encourage compact and mixed use of development and natural resource management policies and provisions. However, both consider the development under the sustainable environment condition. Afforestation is emphasized, such as the ratio of plants in public areas. Emphasis is still given on the space between buildings, regions, and space to ensure proper and sufficient amenities. Besides, they both have the dissimilar development plan, but compliments to their respective geography and deal with their particular environmental risks, such as Parramatta's flood, air noise, or the Monash’s subdivision of suburbs. Meanwhile, the local governments are doing their best to cater these problems.