Comparative Analysis of Local Environment Planning in Sydney and Planning Scheme in Melbourne

This report compares and analyzes the Local Environment Planning of Sydney in 2012 and the Planning Scheme in Melbourne, focusing on land use controls for implementing state and local environmental policies. It includes a detailed structure of the planning systems in NSW and Victoria, statistical facts about Sydney and Melbourne, and a comparative analysis of aims and objectives, layout and length of the structure, categorization of land usage, primary policy issues, development control mechanism, and relationship with external state policies.

Running head: URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Urban Planning Principles, Systems and Practice
Student’s Name
University Name
Author’s Note

2URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Executive Summary
The primary focus of this Comparative report incorporates unpacking, reviewing and
comparing Local Environment Planning of Sydney in 2012 as well as the Planning Scheme in
Melbourne. This report demonstrates the ways in which controls of land use can be put to use
for the purpose of implementation of state as well as local environmental policies of planning
in two of the cities located in the competing states like New South Wales as well as Victoria
situated in Australia.

3URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Table of Contents
Part 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................3
1. Understanding the planning as well as assessment systems of NSW and Victoria...............3
2. NSW NEPS versus Planning schemes of VIC.......................................................................5
3. Overview of the Statistical Facts............................................................................................5
Part 2..........................................................................................................................................7
Comparative Analysis................................................................................................................7
A. Aims and Objective...........................................................................................................7
B. Layout and length of the structure...................................................................................11
C. Categorisation of Land Usage (viz. zoning and map works)...........................................12
D. Primary policy issues that have been addressed..............................................................14
(i) Housing........................................................................................................................14
(ii) Sustainable Growth.....................................................................................................15
(iii) Transport....................................................................................................................16
(iv) Heritage as well as cultural conservation...................................................................16
E. development control mechanism.....................................................................................17
F. Relationship with external state policies..........................................................................18
Conclusion................................................................................................................................19
Reference List..........................................................................................................................20

4URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Part 1: Introduction
1. Understanding the planning as well as assessment systems of NSW and Victoria
In NSW, nine different pathways of planning approval are there. The stature of
development will determine which assessment pathway in particular should be taken and are
actually applicable.
Depending up on pattern of development as well as the scope of the building project, various
small home renovations project, for instance erection of garden shed or carport hardly need
approval of building plan.
Some straightforward residential, industrial or commercial projects of low impact
which actually requires an approval may get sanctioned by passing through a fast track
process of approval called complying development (Australia and Australia 2015). In case if
specific standards and some land requirements are met in the application, then a certificate of
complying development is easily obtainable form the respective council or from any
accredited certifying authority and there is absolutely no need of fully developed application.
In New South Wales, there is a hierarchy in the development rules, beginning from
legislation and gradually moving on to various plans, policies guidelines as well as codes.

5URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Figure 1: The levels of Development rules in New South Wales
(Source:
https://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/building_and_development/developme
nt_rules/hierarchy_of_development_rules)
However, Bartel, McFarland and Hearfield (2014), opines that there are still
some ambiguities in the process of accreditation. Emphasizing on the
Environmental Planning as well as Assessment Act of 1979 would make
things clear. This is the basic plan that controls land usage planning.
The above mentioned act usually perform like a single instrument
controlling vessel for every municipality. The planning scheme is the first
phase of planning control and demarcates the way in which the land
might be utilised, developed, conserved or at best protected. At the
completion of the planning phase, confirmatory documentation is received
by then applying entity.

6URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Along with planning scheme, this act moreover account for the VPP
(Victorian Provisions for planning) which is a document template
highlighting the state provisions for the planning schemes. As informed by
Bhattacharya, Oppenheim and Stern (2015), this act provides the framework of the
procedures required to prepare and amend VPP as well as planning
schemes. It also helps in settling disputes, enforcing compliance and other
administrative procedures.
2. NSW NEPS versus Planning schemes of VIC
The Local Environment Plan of the New South Wales is a stable
document which specifies the control as well as the guidelines of
development within the council’s area. Chen and Manley (2014), informs that this
determines what development can take place and where it can be
developed including what sort of development activities should take place
on the land. Both written instrument as well as mas are incorporative of
the LEPS. Doloi (2012), provides that these two must be perceived in
combination and these two in unison provides a complete understanding
of the zoning or the building controls across the particular area or one
distinct property.
The task of supplementing LEPs is performed by the DCPs which
provides a more described planning control for the concerned area. As per
the ideas of Franks (2012), the VPS (Planning Scheme of Victoria) is one
statutory documentation that sets out the objectives, provisions, as well

7URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
as policies for using, developing as well as protecting the land in context
to which the scheme applies.
The authority of planning, which is mostly the local council ought to
provide the policy content of local planning, including the strategic
statement of the Municipality and also take the responsibility of selecting
the appropriate zones along with overlays from VPP, for inclusion within
the planning scheme. Parts of VPPs like state polices are included as
components of all planning schemes.
3. Overview of the Statistical Facts
Sydney, the capital city of NSW is bounded in north by the Port
Jackson, the area of the Municipal Corporation of Woolhara as well as the
Randwick city at the east, in the south region the area of the Bayside
Council and Inner West in west region. As per the data provided by
Haughton and McManus (2012), it is estimated that the approximate residing
population of Sydney in 2017 have been 232,926 and with 27 square
kilometres square of area. There are 33 suburban area as well as a
population density 8716 people every square kilometres.
The Victorian Capital is Melbourne. The Moonee City valley and also
the Moreland City along with Yarra and Stonnington, Yarra River and lastly
the Maribyronong in west bounds the Melbourne city.
Again the estimated population of residents in Melbourne has been
159053 as of 2017 and approximate area of the city is 32 square
kilometres (Hensher et al. 2012). There are also 15 suburbs and a population
density 4904 people every square kilometres.

8URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE

9URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Part 2
Comparative Analysis
In the Comparative analysis that follows, a significant reflection as well as
comparison of the Local Environmental Plan of Sydney and the Planning
Scheme of Melbourne have been accomplished.
A. Aims and Objective
Local Environmental
Plan of Sydney 2012
MPS (Melbourne)
A&O The aims of the plan in
particular are the
follows:
 Reinforcement
of the role of
Sydney as
primary location
for the Sydney
metropolis
 To gather
support for
making the
Sydney city, an
important
business
The aim in overall for
the planning scheme
is:
 To lay out a
consolidated
framework which
would facilitate
decision making
regarding the
futuristic land
usage
 To reveal the
state’s and the
regional
expectations

10URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
location,
education,
cultural activities
as well as
tourism
 To promote
sustainable
development
that is
ecologically safe
 To encourage
Sydney city to
move towards
economic
prosperity
through:
- Gathering
provisions at
densities for the
cause of
development
which would
aggravate
employment
opportunities
regarding land
usage.
 To make
provisions so
that the regional
and the local
policies which
impacts the land
usage and
development
can be
facilitated.
The precise aims of
this planning are
presented hereby:
 Settlement
panning is
meant for
anticipation and
responding tp
existence needs
of the futuristic
communities by
providing zoned

11URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
- Retaining as well
as increasing
use of land meat
for educational
purposes.
 To provide for
the growing of a
diverse and big
population in
Sydney city by
making
provisions of
appropriate and
affordable
housing.
 To enforce a
series of various
services as well
as infrastructure
which meets the
requirement of
workers, residing
people and the
visitors as well.
 To make sure
as well as
serviced land
areas for the
needs like
housing,
recreation,
commercial
usage,
community
facilities and so
on.
 To save the
greenery in
Melbourne from
getting affected
from housing
developments
 To make sure
that sufficient
land supply is
there for the
main purposes
like residence,
retail business,
recreation,

12URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
that pattern of
the land usage
reflects the
current as well
as projected
capacity for
transport
network and
walking space,
cycling arena
and the
propensity of
using public
transport
 To enhance the
availability of
amenities and
the quality of
living of the
regional
communities
 Make provisions
for array of
mixed use
centres and to
institutional and
others.
 To promote the
concentration of
the maximum
retail outlets,
commercial
centres,
entertainment
and cultural
centres in to
zones of high
activity which is
easily accessible
for all
communities.
 To make people
understand
significance of
the coastal area,
conserve them
and ensure their
sustainable
usage.
 To promote

13URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
economically
boost those
centres.
 To accomplish
high end
urbanisation by
ensuring that
the new
developments
reflect modern
outlook faceted
to the future
 To preserve
Sydney’s
environmental
heritage
 To promote that
the people enjoy
the natural
environment in
Sydney, its
harbours as well
as the recreation
areas.
cereation of
such building
developments
that have
significant
contribution to
the locality
 To plan for
developing
social as well as
physical
infrastructure in
an efficient,
equitable and a
timely way.
 To provide
housing to
people closer to
their job
locations and
the transport
facilities.

14URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
It is worth noticing that Sydney have given impetus to the micro
level growth which can be realised through reinforcement of central
activities which fosters economic prosperity, enhancement of services,
promotion of sustainable development and conservation of the local
heritage and environment.
The Planning Scheme of Melbourne have a wider strategic layout
and broader aims. According to the details provided by Howard (2015), the
Macro development plan emphasizes on scientific land usage, maintaining
the ecology and heritage of the place and also enhancing the standard of
the people’s lives. The scheme also incorporates the goal of developing
housing affordability of everyone in the local community.
B. Layout and length of the structure
The local Environment plan of the Sydney city have been
categorically structured in a detailed manner emphasising on figuring out
what can be permissible and what not. In this structure, the Micro
planning pattern and the regional spatial parameters have been given
predominance. As per the information laid down by Javed, Lam and Zou (2013),
there are 7 important parts of this layout. These are the initial particulars
of a development, permissible or prohibited developments, tables
demarcating land usage, exempted as well as complying development,
primary standards of development, local as well as miscellaneous
provisions regarding height as well as floor space and lastly scheduled
articles in companion with dictionary as well as historical notes. Again,
Jones, Moura and Domingos (2014), informs that in the Sydney Plan, all these

15URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
categories have been listed in detail with their individual set of objectives
which all are linked with one focus point. The SLEP is quite easy to access
and analyse and very specific to its postulates. Bothe professionals and
ordinary people can understand it.
The Planning scheme if Melbourne city, on the contrary is one lengthy
documentation where overall 1451 pages are there. It is entirely drafted
on a singular vision rather than skimming on the regional regulations and
parameters. As informed by Ke (2014), the structural parts of the Melbourne
plan follows framework like the state policy, local policy as well as
multiple provisions concentrating on certain particular localities within the
territory of Melbourne.
The Planning scheme of Melbourne emphasizes on the vision statement of
every category along with a set of objectives. As Liu et al. (2014),
supposes, this planning scheme is rather complex and built more
strategically. However, this plan have been planned in such a manner so
that the professional can scan it easily, however the ordinary users
cannot.
The maps of both Sydney and Melbourne are printed in grid pattern so
that implementation of the planning instruments becomes easier. In the
mapping grid of the SLEP, the individual council’s grid blocks gives way to
the sheet numbers. This is why the ordinary men can analyse it easily.
However, as informed by Love, Edwards and Irani (2012), in the map of
Melbourne, the grid blocks paves the way for the strategies directly.
C. Categorisation of Land Usage (viz. zoning and map works)

16URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Both cities are significant are significant as trade centres, financial
and cultural hub as well as tourism centres. Hence, categorisation of land
usage as well as zoning has a crucial role to play in establishing the two
cities as centres of strategic importance. Studied planning in both cities
has not only been successful in resource managing but also contributed in
depicting the threats of future and projected demand trend (Love et al.
2015). The process of planning is constantly evolving with the amendments
and proposals for the new amendments occurring regularly.
The area of Sydney city’s local government have been segregated in
to 24 separate grid zones with each covering one specific area. The land
zoning, the site specifications, average height of buildings and ratio of
floor space in every individual area is represented by various unique
maps. On the other hand local government area under the Melbourne city
is segregated under 11 separate grid regions. Every grid points out a
separate area represented by separate maps based on the zoning
parameters. The zoning parameters varies for each area and each grid.
Evidently, the SLEP have excess mas than the Planning scheme of the city
of Melbourne. Together with that, Mojtahedi and Oo (2017), opines that the
categorisation as well as representation of individual areas is somewhat
confusing as many available and accessible maps are prevalent in the
SLEP which are difficult to arrange on the basis of name or order. The
Melbourne city’s plan on the contrary, have maps which are more
comprehensive and ordered more efficiently (Morrissey et al. 2012). The
characterising and zoning criteria of the land usage characterisation of the
SLEP are:

17URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
- General residential
- Residential area of low density
- Neighbourhood and local centre
- Area of core commerce
- Business development area
- Business park
- General area for industries
- Area of mixed usage
- Area under infrastructure and area for public recreation
The characterising and zoning criteria of the land usage characterisation
of the Melbourne city are as follows:
- Residential area
- Residential growth
- General residential area
- Neighbourhood
- Public space including roads
- Zones for special purpose
In the two cities, the zones are further segregated in to permitted as
well as non-permitted zones and lastly the specific zones that have
special consent. In the Sydney city, categorisation of land usage is
done unless the specific plot falls within the authority of the SEPP.
However, in Melbourne, the categorisation is monitored by one
regulatory authority and framework.

18URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
In fact, both cities have the potential of a business hub. Hence,
emphasis have been laid on developing specific sites like business
parks, city centres and connectivity with the suburban areas and
subsequent development of the industrial zone.
D. Primary policy issues that have been addressed
Planning instruments in Melbourne and Sydney highlights the
principal issues. The economic, cultural and social prospects as well as
challenges are similar for both the cities. As informed by Sanchez et al.
(2013), the current trend of rapid development and the prospects of
future planning forms the basis of main policy making framework.
(i) Housing
There are residents from various cultural backgrounds in the cities
of Sydney as well as Melbourne. Demographically, there is a trend of
major percentage of the population being young in both the cities. The
two cities re not simply the point of focus housing policies of the
respective regions but the surrounding suburbs as well. Since rapid
expansion in both cities are taking place and dramatic increase of the
population is taking place, Sherval and Hardiman (2014), have analysed that housing
at affordability is turning to become a key issue at the two cities. Housing
is currently a vibrant issue that have been addressed in detail in both the
planning schemes. However, as per Walker, Harley and Mills (2015),
comparison of the layout of the development plan of both the cities
suggest that the plan of Melbourne is comparatively comprehensive as
well as elaborative since the strategic planning of the Melbourne’s plan

19URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
encompasses the housing problems prevalent in all areas under
Melbourne metropolitan authority.
(ii) Sustainable Growth
The main goal of the two instruments is becoming self-sustainable
as well as smart in particular ways in which new development happens. In
the Sydney plan, focus is laid on sustainable development, conservation of
environment and infrastructure and high end impact that could fall upon
infrastructure have been considered. On the contrary, in the Planning
scheme of Melbourne, a long term strategic conservation plan for the
growth corridors have been done.
The planning instruments in Sydney as well as Melbourne relates
sustainable growth to 1 single vision. The vision is making them each 30
minute city where people can very easily communicate for life, work as
well play. The Melbourne plan have framed to achieve 0% rate of net
emissions within 2020. In order to achieve these, the techniques required
involves waste management, conservation of water as well as community
awareness regarding emission f greenhouse gas.
(iii) Transport
The all-inclusive strategy of the Melbourne plan while planning for
addressing the accessibility as well as the transport issues should make
sure that in integrated and futuristic system for transport is implemented
which could provide social opportunities as well as economic prosperity
and contribute towards sustainability of the environment.

20URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
The approach on the part of Sydney city is not as much inclusive and
more focused on a regional scale. As per the Sydney plan, development of
more roads in city centre is not adequate for crowd management since
this would entice more people to drive cars (Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bisang
2016). On the contrary, it is essential to make the transport system more
sustainable by adhering more priority towards the pedestrians and thus
create wider and safer foot paths as well as accessible cycling pathways.
The government of both cities are working intensely to deliver better
transport facilities and accomplish transport projects that satisfies their
strategic vision for the development scheme. This is one important step
towards the creation of efficient, smart as well as liveable and sustainable
cities.
Both the development schemes have put impetus on improvement of the
urban structure so that they can entice the public towards using public
transport. The hike in population and the amount of vehicles on road have
led the schemes to incorporate intense traffic controls and parking plots
within the residential areas.
(iv) Heritage as well as cultural conservation
There are ample number of heritage sites in the two cities that
makes the two laces f high end historic importance. Owing to this,
heritage conservation have been specially emphasized up on and various
conservation techniques for heritage conservation have been innovated.
In the Sydney city, the SLEP as well as the DCP of Sydney have given
emphasis on the Heritage Floor Area Scheme. The 6.11 clause in SLEP

21URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
of 2012 provide for awarding excess heritage floor area to the heritage
building owners only if the owners complete their conservation work and
after that sell the heritage space to the developers also.
In Melbourne, about 7000 properties in the domain of municipality are
protected by the Heritage Overlay (YJ Siew, Balatbat and Carmichael 2013). The
Melbourne system of planning incorporates two primary clauses regarding
conservation of heritage sites and the clause 22.04 emphasizes on the
zone of the capital city.
E. development control mechanism
1. Height of Building
Both cities emphasizes that in the new development sites, transition
of height takes place with coherence to the items of heritage and the
existing condition of the sites. The SLEP considers city centres as the point
of reference for transition of height in the adjoining areas.
2. Ratio of Floor Space
One important aspect of the two city planning are that with the
desired FSR, the character of the locality ought to be maintained. FSR
have significant role for defining standards of the SLEP.
Calculating FSR:
As informed by Morrissey et al. (2012), under SLEP, the following criteria
have been set for calculation of the standard FSR:
-objectives as well definition of the FSR

22URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
-site spaces and the exclusions from the site spaces
-subdivisions of strata
-particular considerations as well as calculations regarding the public land
under that area
Considering the already existing constrictions
The first, second and the third schedule of the planning scheme of
Melbourne have emphasised on capital city area. FSR of 18.1 is being
strictly maintained (Quaddus and Siddique 2013). The uplift area of floor has
been measured at gross realisation value of 10 percent for every square
metre.
As per the development controls like setbacks for the cases concerned
with Sydney city, those are all covered by the DCP. So far as Melbourne
planning is concerned, such development controls falls below Planning
provisions and the Overlays.
F. Relationship with external state policies
The plans of land usage from different local environmental schemes
in New South Wales follows one standard template. The planning
instruments becomes highly coherent in the context of the strategies
since LEP supports the equal set of goals.
In Victoria, there is one organisation, the VGLA. This independent
organisation supports counsellors, communities as well as councils for
good governance. As Love, Edwards and Irani (2012), supposes, this works directly
for bringing the community down to the policy making table.

23URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Northern Territory as well as Western Australia are leading on planning
reform score 7.7 as well as 7.5 from 10 for the cause of performing
against principles that includes effective consultation along with the
community as well as relevant experts, have one central body for the
assessment of fast track apps which comply by the rules (Ke 2014).
Conclusion
New South Wales as well as Victoria have some similar and some
dissimilar contexts, both physically as well as demographically. The
planning schemes if both cities are similarly well built. However analysis
of the strategic position of the individual schemes reveal that the local
development strategy of the New South Wales is much appreciable for the
fulfilment of region wise goals. However, positioning the governance of
the whole state on one single guideline is not justifiable. In terms of
infrastructure and transport development, the future estimation in Victoria
is much appreciative. However, implementation of the strategies is more
important. Hence, good supervision would result in the development of
the areas.

24URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Reference List
Australia, I. and Australia, D.I., 2015. RE: Australian Infrastructure Audit, 15(2), pp. 1-10.
Bartel, R., McFarland, P. and Hearfield, C., 2014. Taking a de-binarised envirosocial
approach to reconciling the environment vs economy debate: lessons from climate change
litigation for planning in NSW, Australia. Town Planning Review, 85(1), pp.67-96.
Bhattacharya, A., Oppenheim, J. and Stern, N., 2015. Driving sustainable development
through better infrastructure: Key elements of a transformation program. Brookings Global
Working Paper Series.
Chen, L. and Manley, K., 2014. Validation of an instrument to measure governance and
performance on collaborative infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 140(5), p.04014006.
Doloi, H., 2012. Assessing stakeholders' influence on social performance of infrastructure
projects. Facilities, 30(11/12), pp.531-550.
Franks, D., 2012. Social impact assessment of resource projects. International Mining for
Development Centre, 3(2), PP. 1-16.
Haughton, G. and McManus, P., 2012. Neoliberal experiments with urban infrastructure: the
Cross City Tunnel, Sydney. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1),
pp.90-105.
Haughton, G. and McManus, P., 2012. Neoliberal experiments with urban infrastructure: the
Cross City Tunnel, Sydney. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1),
pp.90-105.
Hensher, D.A., Truong, T.P., Mulley, C. and Ellison, R., 2012. Assessing the wider economy
impacts of transport infrastructure investment with an illustrative application to the North-

25URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
West Rail Link project in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, pp.292-
305.
Howard, T., 2015. Olivebranches and idiot's guides: Frameworks for community engagement
in Australian wind farm development. Energy Policy, 78, pp.137-147.
Javed, A.A., Lam, P.T. and Zou, P.X., 2013. Output-based specifications for PPP projects:
lessons for facilities management from Australia. Journal of Facilities Management, 11(1),
pp.5-30.
Jones, H., Moura, F. and Domingos, T., 2014. Transport infrastructure project evaluation
using cost-benefit analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, pp.400-409.
Ke, Y., 2014. Is public–private partnership a panacea for infrastructure development? The
case of Beijing National Stadium. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(2),
pp.90-100.
Liu, J., Love, P.E., Smith, J., Regan, M. and Davis, P.R., 2014. Life cycle critical success
factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 31(5), p.04014073.
Love, P.E., Edwards, D.J. and Irani, Z., 2012. Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic
misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure project cost overruns. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), pp.560-571.
Love, P.E., Smith, J., Simpson, I., Regan, M. and Olatunji, O., 2015. Understanding the
landscape of overruns in transport infrastructure projects. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 42(3), pp.490-509.

26URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE
Mojtahedi, M. and Oo, B.L., 2017. The impact of stakeholder attributes on performance of
disaster recovery projects: The case of transport infrastructure. International Journal of
Project Management, 35(5), pp.841-852.
Morrissey, J., Iyer-Raniga, U., McLaughlin, P. and Mills, A., 2012. A strategic project
appraisal framework for ecologically sustainable urban infrastructure. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 33(1), pp.55-65.
Sanchez, A., Lehtiranta, L., Hampson, K. and Kenley, R., 2013. Sustainable infrastructure
procurement in Australia: standard vs. project practices. Sustainable Infrastructure
Procurement in Australia: Standard vs. Project Practices.
Sherval, M. and Hardiman, K., 2014. Competing perceptions of the rural idyll: responses to
threats from coal seam gas development in Gloucester, NSW, Australia. Australian
Geographer, 45(2), pp.185-203.
Walker, D.H.T., Harley, J. and Mills, A., 2015. Performance of project alliancing in
Australasia: a digest of infrastructure development from 2008 to 2013. Construction
Economics and Building, 15(1), p.1.
Weber, B., Alfen, H.W. and Staub-Bisang, M., 2016. Infrastructure as an asset class:
investment strategy, sustainability, project finance and PPP. John wiley & sons.
YJ Siew, R., CA Balatbat, M. and G. Carmichael, D., 2013. A review of
building/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, 2(2), pp.106-139.

27URBAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE