butler-brighton - wordpress.com · conjunction with the land developer’s or council’s appointed...

WORKING PAPER 9

JULY 2002

Butler-BrightonCharretteAccommodating future growth through Liveable Neighbourhoods principles

20-24 August 2001Held at the City of Wanneroo Administration Centre,Western Australia

Co-ordinated by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure in conjunction with the City of Wanneroo and the Satterley Group

Butler–Brighton Charrette Working Paper p.1

This Working Paper is Number Nine in a series of papers which tests or supplements the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods trial policy. Papers are:

Working Paper No. 1: Karratha Enquiry-by-Design workshop May 1999Working Paper No. 2: Kalgoorlie-Boulder Enquiry-by-Design workshop March 2000Working Paper No. 3: Esperance Enquiry-by-Design workshop June 2000Working Paper No. 4: Armadale Enquiry-by-Design workshop May 2000Working Paper No. 5: Mirrabooka Enquiry-by-Design workshop January 2001Working Paper No. 6: Claremont Enquiry-by-Design workshop March 2001Working Paper No. 7: Two Rocks Enquiry-by-Design workshop December 2001Working Paper No. 8: Bassendean Enquiry-by-Design workshop April 2002Working Paper No. 9: Butler-Brighton Charrette July 2002

Papers 2 – 9 are available on the Web.

Papers may be viewed at the Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s Head Offi ce Library:

Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth WA 6000Phone: (08) 9264 7777, fax: (08) 9264 7566

Internet: http://www.planning.wa.gov.auEmail: [email protected]

TTY: (08) 9264 7535 Infoline: 1800 626 477

Papers available in alternative formats on application to the Disability Services Coordinator.

Disclaimer

Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in this light and on the basis that the Government, its employees and agents are not liable for any damage or loss whatsoever that may occur as a result of action taken or not taken (as the case may be) in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein.

© State of Western Australia

Published by the Western Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House, 469 Wellington StreetPerth, Western Australia 6000Published July 2002ISBN 0 7309 9313 2


PREFACE

Since 1999, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (formerly the Ministry for Planning) has undertaken eight non-binding Enquiry-by-Design workshops that have been based either on producing vision plans for town centres, or on subdivision layouts for specifi c development sites. The workshops have considered issues pertaining to development on the urban fringes or large urban infi ll areas of Perth, and other towns in Western Australia. Revitalisation and improvement options for existing places have also been investigated.

Other Enquiry-by-Design workshops that have been documented in this series of Working Papers include those that have taken place in:

• Karratha in the north-west of Western Australia;

• Kalgoorlie-Boulder in the Goldfi elds Region;

• Esperance in the south-east of Western Australia;

• Armadale, the designated strategic regional centre in the south-east corridor of Metropolitan Perth;

• Mirrabooka Regional Centre in the City of Stirling;

• Claremont Town Centre in the Perth’s western suburbs;

• Two Rocks town centre in Perth’s far northern suburbs; and

• Bassendean Town Centre in the Town of Bassendean.

The Enquiry-by-Design Workshops have been initiated by either the relevant Council or landowner, with each Workshop being based on the application of the Liveable Neighbourhoods trial policy or, in existing areas, on the principles of traditional mixed use development. In every case the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has investigated urban design solutions in conjunction with the land developer’s or Council’s appointed consultants.

The Butler-Brighton Charrette differed from the non-binding Enquiry-by-Design approach in that agreements were sought from stakeholders on key issues and principles to enable outcomes and implementation to be progressed more effectively.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE................................................................................................................................. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... 5-7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 9-10

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Why a Charrette? 12

2 CHARETTE SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES............................................. 152.1 Scope of Charrette 152.2 Objectives 152.3 Expected Charrette Outcomes 172.4 Liveable Neighbourhoods Principles 18

2.4.1 Neighbourhood and Town Structure Principles 192.4.2 Mixed Use Town Centre Principles 202.4.3 Other Design Principles 21

3 CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES.................................................................................. 23 3.1 North-West Corridor Strategic and Statutory Context 23 3.2 Transport Planning Context 23

3.3 Other Major Development Projects in the Corridor 243.4 Development Context for the Study Area 253.5 Planning Issues and Challenges 25

4 NEW AND EXISTING RESIDENTS’ SURVEY.............................................................. 27

5 SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................. 295.1 Introduction 295.2 Environmental Context and Issues 29

6 TRANSPORT OPTIONS.............................................................................................. 356.1 Public Transport 356.2 Road network 37

7 CENTRE AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES...................................................................... 397.1 Centre Issues 39

7.1.1 Introduction 397.1.2 Jindalee Workshop Outcomes 397.1.3 Populations and Retail Catchments 39

7.2 Employment Trends and implications 407.2.1 Introduction 407.2.2 Employment Characteristics of the Outer North–West Corridor 407.2.3 Commuting and the Outer North–West Corridor Area 417.2.4 Implications Based on Broader Employment Trends 427.2.5 Potential Sources of Suburban Employment Growth 447.2.6 Service Sector Employment Growth and Opportunities 447.2.7 Self-Employment and Home-Based Businesses 45

8 SUB–REGIONAL STRUCTURE – DESIGN OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT............. 478.1 Sub-Regional Structure: the Starting Point – the three 1996 Jindalee

Workshop Options 478.2 Key Infl uences on the Proposed Sub-Regional Structure 478.3 The Four Options prepared – Options 1 and 2 (Rail along Freeway) and

Options 3 and 4 (Rail within Urban Corridor) 498.3.1 Option 1: Rail along Freeway with Butler and Alkimos as Main Town

Centres (refer Figure 5) 508.3.2 Option 2: Rail along Freeway with Brighton and Eglinton as Main

Town Centres (refer Figure 6) 538.3.3 Option 3: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment within Urban Corridor

(refer Figure 7) 548.3.4 Option 4: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment Mostly within Urban

Corridor (refer Figure 8) 578.4 Features of the Preferred Sub–Regional Plan 59

9 DETAILED URBAN STRUCTURE PLAN..................................................................... 639.1 Background 639.2 Key Features of the Plan and the Design Rationale 639.3 Town Centres 68

10 MAJOR PLAN ELEMENTS.......................................................................................... 7110.1 Household Yields 7110.2 Employment and Economic Development 71

10.2.1 Land and Space Budgets for the Brighton Study Area 7110.2.2 Employment Budgets for the Brighton Study Area 7210.2.3 Regional Structuring to Deliver These Employment Outcomes 7510.2.4 Demand for Space at Integrated Business Centres 76

10.3 Retail Hierarchy 7710.3.1 Town Centres 7710.3.2 Other Retail Facilities 79

10.4 Road Network 8010.4.1 Future Traffi c Volumes on the Arterial Road Network 8010.4.2 Design Details for Arterial Routes 81

10.5 Public Transport Provision 8510.6 Staging 86

11 COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 89 11.1 Introduction 89 11.2 Overview 89 11.3 Conclusion 92

12 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY - THE NEXT STEPS.............................................. 93 12.1 Governance 93 12.2 District Structure Plan Preparation and Adoption 94 12.3 District Structure Plan Contents 94 12.4 Metropolitan Region Scheme 94 12.5 Local Structure Plans and Subdivision 95 12.6 Other Implementation Items 95 12.7 Financial 95



APPENDICIES

Appendix 1 Outline of Charrette Process 97 Appendix 2 Invited Charrette Participants and Charrette program 98-103 Appendix 3 Summary of Briefi ng Booklet topics 104 Appendix 4 Results of Residents’ Survey 105 Appendix 5 Public Transport Options 106 Appendix 6 Predicted Traffi c Flows 119 Appendix 7 Better Business and Employment by Design 120-129Appendix 9 Glossary of Terms 130-131Appendix 10 References 132

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Study of Area in Regional Context 13Figure 2 1996 Jindalee Options A,B,C 14Figure 3 Study Area and Land Ownership 16Figure 4 Environmental and Vegetation Features 31Figure 5 Option 1: Rail along Freeway with Butler and Alkimos as the Main Town Centres 51Figure 6 Option 2: Rail along Freeway with Brighton and Eglinton as the Main Town Centres 52Figure 7 Option 3: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment within Urban Corridor 55Figure 8 Option 4: Prefered Rail Option 56Figure 9 Preferred Sub–Regional Structure 61Figure 10 Detailed Urban Structure Plan 62Figure 11 Detailed Urban Structure Plan (annotated) 65Figure 12 Brighton Town Centre Detail Plan 66Figure 13 Passenger Rail Line Treatments 70Figure 14 Household Yield Scenarios 73Figure 15 Notional Integrator Arterial Cross–section: MRWA Version 82Figure 16 Notional Integrator Arterial Cross–section: Alternative Version 82Figure 17 2–Lane Divided Sub-arterial Road Type 1 83Figure 18 Divided Neighbourhood Connector Type 1 83Figure 19 2–Lane Divided Town Centre Street 83

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sustainability Principles 32-33Table 2 Ultimate Daily Traffi c Volumes on Key Network Elements 80Table 3 Net Value Comparison of the Two Rail Options 85Table 4 Project Assessment Indicators 91

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Butler-Brighton Charrette was held over a week in late August 2001 and jointly sponsored by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, City of Wanneroo and the Satterley Group for the landowners. The objective of the Butler-Brighton Charrette was to apply the principles of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy at a district level to achieve more sustainable development for over 30,000 future residents of Perth’s North-West Corridor. In particular, design approaches that provided for mixed use towns supported by viable public transport, a cluster of supporting neighbourhoods, and a context for local employment creation, were explored. The charrette also had to accommodate current subdivision approvals and construction, and accommodate changes to district level infrastructure while maintaining land supply for the landowner/developer.

Pre-charrette work examined transit alignment and model technology options. Bus and light rail use were discarded due to the requirement for mode changes at Butler to connect with the metro rail network, and travel time and access implications for areas further north to Yanchep and Two Rocks.

During the fi rst four days of the charrette, a number of design options were proposed and evaluated. Essentially, these options differed from each other by the proposed alignments of the railway line, together with the size, number, form and location of the proposed town centres.

Three main options were subjected to an evaluation process:

• Option 1 – the railway maintains its alignment on the freeway reserve, then leaves the reserve to swing in towards the currently proposed location of the Alkimos Town Centre which, together with Eglinton, form the two main regional centres in the Corridor. Butler is a small town centre, and there is no centre at Brighton/Jindalee.

• Option 2 – the railway maintains its alignment on the freeway reserve, then leaves the reserve in a similar manner to Option 1, however, the Alkimos Town Centre is much smaller than in Option 1. Eglinton and Brighton/Jindalee are the two main regional centres in the corridor. Butler is a small town centre.

• Option 3 – the railway leaves its alignment on the freeway reserve at Butler, just to the north of Lukin Drive, and swings into a central position in the Corridor. Butler is a small neighbourhood town centre, with Brighton/Jindalee being a little larger. Alkimos and Eglinton would be the two main regional centres in the Corridor.

Each of these options were found to have signifi cant defi ciencies, which led to them being discarded after rigorous evaluation using a number of criteria.

By the last day of the charrette, a fourth, ‘preferred’ plan emerged, which best addressed the identifi ed shortcomings of the three initial options, and appeared to provide the most economic and social benefi ts for the corridor.

This preferred sub-regional plan provides for a rail alignment swinging inland north of a park and ride station at Butler, a station east of the Brighton/Jindalee Town Centre, and a park and ride station at the Alkimos Town Centre. The rail alignment is a narrow reserve, and in-cut through most of the urban area, and particularly the town centres. The Brighton and Alkimos Town Centres are supported by a cluster of neighbourhoods, based on 400m walking distances.


These town centres would accommodate a mix of land uses, higher densities, and employment to support local employment self-suffi ciency. Additional employment would be provided along arterial routes and along the freeway.

The main arterial routes – Marmion Avenue, Lukin Drive, Connolly Drive, and the proposed new east-west Jindalee Boulevard – are designed with frontage development to provide for business location.

Strong east-west routes provide better access to the coast and limit the dividing infl uence of north-south routes.

Key environmental features were identifi ed. A major challenge was in balancing the need for local bushland protection against the need for more effi cient use of urban land through higher populations in station and town catchments to support public transport usage and reduced greenhouse gas production.

A detailed urban structure plan that provided a guide for future structure planning to street block level was produced for the district area. To support the sub-regional and detailed urban structure plan, local employment opportunities were identifi ed and land areas and appropriate building forms proposed. The size and location of local centres were also identifi ed. The preferred plan was measured and evaluated for its levels of performance against economic and social criteria. Indicative retail centre sizes were also determined.

This cost-benefi t analysis measured the ‘business as usual’ scenario (with the consequent costs to State and local government and the landowners) against the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus transit’ preferred scenario developed at the charrette. The analysis indicated that the Liveable Neighbourhoods plus transit’ scenario was of signifi cant economic benefi t to all stakeholders, and identifi ed options for addressing a funding gap of $15m to $25m.

Finally, a staging plan and implementation schedule were proposed to progress the charrette outcomes.

The key element in implementing the preferred plan is the construction of the railway to the Butler-Brighton Town Centre as quickly as possible. This will need to be around 2006/2007, when Brighton Town Centre will commence.


1 For an explanation of the charrette, refer Appendix 1.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Butler-Brighton Charrette1 was held over fi ve days during August of 2001, and was jointly sponsored by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), the City of Wanneroo and the Satterley Property Group. Satterley are project managers for the Butler Land Company and Department of Housing and Works. Principal responsibility for the organisation and management of the charrette lay with the DPI.

The charrette focussed on the Joint Venture’s land at Butler and Jindalee, and particularly landholdings north of Lukin Drive. The charrette also considered the immediate context of these landholdings, particularly lots to the west where concept planning based on Liveable Neighbourhoods principles was being prepared. In examining the regional context for the site, especially with regard to the location of town centres, rail alignments and stations, the area north to Alkimos Eglinton was considered (refer Figure 1: Study Area in Regional Context).

The origins of the charrette date back to August 1996 when an Enquiry-by-Design Workshop was undertaken in the North-West Corridor of Perth to inform, test and measure the Liveable Neighbourhoods Community Design Code, then in preparation.

The 1996 exercise, known as the Jindalee Workshop (refer to Results from the Jindalee Enquiry-by-Design Workshop 1996 report), developed proposals based on the new regional planning model, with the clustering of neighbourhoods around a town centre anchored at one end by a rail station and at the other by a major arterial road. Three designs at a regional scale were drawn and evaluated, based upon alternative alignments for extensions to the Northern Suburbs Rail Line. The three different rail alignments considered at the 1996 workshop were:

• On the alignment of the freeway (‘Option A’);• On the alignment of Connolly Drive (‘Option B’); and• To the west of Connolly Drive (‘Option C’).

Detailed plans were then developed based on the preferred design ‘Option C’ (refer Figure 2: 1996 Jindalee Options A, B, C), which featured a rail alignment central to the Corridor.

Measurements were undertaken to compare the performance of the Liveable Neighbourhoods approach with the conventional design approach refl ected in the North-West Corridor Structure Plan (1992). The results indicated the potential of a Liveable Neighbourhoods approach to better perform in terms of employment self-suffi ciency, retail distribution and accessibility, access to public transport and environmental performance in terms of greenhouse gas production and solar orientation. Many of the principles and practices identifi ed and derived from the Jindalee Workshop were included in Edition 1 of Liveable Neighbourhoods, published in December 1997. Since 1996 the urban development front in the north-west corridor has progressed to the Butler landholdings, with Stage 1 known as Brighton. (The Joint Venture’s land will be referred to in this report as Butler-Brighton.)

In November 2000, approval was granted to the fi rst stage of subdivision (some 600 lots) of the Joint Venture’s landholdings, on the basis that the initial development phase did not impact on options for future rail alignments or town centres identifi ed as preferred through the Jindalee Workshop. The aim of the 2001 Butler-Brighton Charrette, therefore, was to refi ne and progress


the 1996 work, in developing Liveable Neighbourhoods scenarios of mixed use, transit-oriented neighbourhoods and town centres as the context for employment generation. The charrette was to undertake a comparative evaluation and cost-benefi t analysis of options, in terms that included of social, economic and environmental criteria. A specifi c charrette objective was to produce an optional design that would provide the basis for a District Structure Plan that would have stakeholder support, and acknowledged staging and timing issues.

1.2 Why a Charrette?

A charrette is a consensus-building, non-adversarial approach to resolving complex planning projects. Key landowners, community representatives, and regulatory agencies work together, generally over an intensive week, to develop principles for development of an area, draw plans to show how principles translate ‘on the ground’, and debate and revise options to reach ‘win-win’ solutions.

A charrette provides an alternative to the traditional sequential planning process by being an interactive forum where concepts are drawn, discussed and iterated in a live environment. There is generally a greater sense of understanding, consensus and ownership of the outcomes. A charrette for Butler-Brighton was seen as the appropriate method to develop and test approaches to the integration of public transport with urban development in the North-West Corridor. It was intended at the Butler-Brighton charrette to reach agreement on key issues and principles, and to provide a cost-benefi t analysis and implementation framework.

A more detailed description of the charrette process is included at Appendix 1. A list of invited charrette participants and the program is included at Appendix 2. A Briefi ng Booklet was prepared to inform charrette participants, and a summary of Briefi ng Booklet topics is included as Appendix 3.


Alkimos

Butler-Brighton

Figure 1 Study Area in Regional Context


Figure 2 1996 Jindalee Options A, B, C

Option A

Option B

Option C


2 CHARRETTE SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES

2.1 Scope of the Charrette

The charrette focussed on the landholdings of the Joint Venture, from Lukin Drive northwards. This landholding totals some 600ha, and is located between Marmion Ave and the Mitchell Freeway reserve, 40km north of Perth city, 12km north of Joondalup city, and 4km north of the Clarkson District Centre (refer Figure 3: Study Area and Land Ownership).

The charrette analysis commenced with consideration of the study area in its sub-regional context. Accordingly, the area north to Eglinton was examined due to issues of rail line, station and centre location options. In considering more detailed (district level) planning for the study area, connections to, and land use relationships with, land to the west at Jindalee and to the north at Alkimos were considered.

The charrette and its fi ndings will have implications for the land located to the north of the Joint Venture landholdings in the Alkimos/Eglinton area, particularly with respect to the issues of rail alignment and the locations of town centres and stations, and further north to St Andrews (Yanchep/Two Rocks) project area.

2.2 Objectives

The objectives of the Butler-Brighton Charrette were to develop and evaluate alternative approaches to the integration of public transport with urban development in this section of North -West Corridor, with a focus on mixed use, transit-oriented neighbourhoods and town centres as the context for employment creation. A major element requiring resolution was how the study area could be served by rapid transit in the future, and how future rail extensions could be integrated with the overall development of the area. A comparative evaluation and cost-benefi t analysis of the options developed were to be undertaken during the charrette.

A further objective was to try to reach agreement with stakeholders on key issues and principles so as to enable more detailed design work to be undertaken, and implementation processes established for outcomes to be fast tracked.

The objectives of the key stakeholders were:

Department for Planning and Infrastructure : the key planning objective was to evolve Liveable Neighbourhoods from its present project-by-project level of implementation, and to create the conditions and an implementation strategy for a transition to an optimal Liveable Neighbourhoods scale of Sustainable Growth Management in the North-West Corridor. The key transport outcome was for certainty of direction on public transport infrastructure as an input to budgeting and forward planning. The main area of investigation was the rail line, its physical impact, operational characteristics, alignment, use of alternative technologies, and patronage modelling.

City of Wanneroo: to develop an agreed structure plan, and certainty in its implementation process, for the study area. Options were sought for centralising the railway within the urban area of the Corridor, and for a town layout that will enable the generation of local employment.

Joint Venture: This group required further subdivision approval to maintain its land sales program. Key issues were the rail alignment and likely impacts, distribution of centres (both district and local), and access points to and from the freeway. In particular, the Joint Venture requires certainty, and to be convinced of the benefi ts and practicality of the fi nal recommended urban form.


Figure 3 Study Area and Land Ownership


Jindalee

The stakeholders more specifi c pre-charrette development objectives were:

• Overall population of some 25,000 residents.

• Employment for up to 10,000 people.

• Provision of upfront built form to a local main street in Stage 1 that includes a medical and/or health facility, community facilities in a multi-use environment, a sales and information centre, and a café with convenience shopping.

• Mixing of road treatments to help create pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly streets.

• Meeting places and activity nodes to be established early.

• Beach access to be provided by January 2002.

• Interesting streetscape and urban form.

• Community facilities and an ongoing program of community activities, including local community participation in an art in public spaces program.

• An implementation strategy for a business incubator to assist the small business operator.

• Positioning of the town centre in the most sustainable location; e.g., adjacent to a major arterial road linking the freeway and with a rail station nearby.

• Enabling sustainable mixed business activities to be created adjacent to the freeway and railway access.

• Enabling the primary and secondary school facilities to operate by 2002.

• Storm water disposal via a combined system including a lined lake, infi ltration basins and grass swales located as a part of the public open space system.

• Encouraging the use of solar energy.

2.3 Expected Charrette Outcomes

The charrette was aimed at producing three principal outcomes:

• the basis for a district structure plan for the Butler-Brighton area, including:

- agreed locations and alignments for rail and other transport infrastructure;- the nature, location and distribution of major land uses;- the urban structure for the area as represented by walkable neighbourhoods;- arterial routes and neighbourhood connectors; and- town and neighbourhood centre locations and indicative sizes.

• a negotiated framework, statutory process and timetable for implementation.

• the basis for an updated and revised report on the existing North-West Corridor Structure Plan (1992).


In preparation for the charrette, investigation was undertaken into a range of fundamental issues, including a residents’ survey, potential rail technologies and noise attenuation, retail development parameters and traffi c context.

2.4 Liveable Neighbourhoods Principles

A specifi c design philosophy underlies the series of Enquiry-by-Design workshops and charrettes undertaken by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The planning and design principles of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Liveable Neighbourhoods trial policy are used in order to test their applicability, and further refi ne them to provide a structure, planning, subdivision and development model for Western Australia that embraces best practice sustainable urban growth management. A summary of the key Urban Structuring principles are outlined in Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 (diagrams are sourced from the Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy Edition 2, 2000).

A charrette objective was to examine options for the development of a transit-oriented mixed use town centre as a context for local employment creation. The benefi ts of this form of town centre are summarized below:

Transit-oriented design: A policy of encouraging a greater mix of uses, and higher densities of development around town centre railway stations and major bus interchanges is likely to result in greater patronage of the public transit system, and less reliance on the private car. To be most effective, development needs to be within walking distance of the transit stop.

Mixed use development: The closer that different uses are to each other, the more likely people are to walk between them rather than using a car, thereby saving money, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for road and car-parking infrastructure. However, adjacent uses need to be compatible.

Generation of local employment : creating local employment provides jobs for people who are unable and/or do not wish to travel long distances for work, as well as providing support for other local businesses and services. It also reduces the requirement for massive road infrastructure to cope with needs for city centre commuters.


Neighbourhoods clustered to form and support a town centre

Neighbourhood unit based on a 400m radius circle or 5-minute walk to the centre

Walkable catchment diagram

2.4.1 Neighbourhood and Town Structure Principles

Neighbourhood structuring approachLiveable Neighbourhoods seeks to integrate land uses within a network of interconnected streets designed for all users. Neighbourhood centres are located at the intersection of major streets to provide for retail exposure. Large parks and schools of a standard size are located between neighbourhoods so that walking access is not compromised.

Town structureThe town structure should be compact and well defi ned. It should consist of a clustering of highly interconnected neighbourhoods that are mutually supportive of existing and future neighbourhood centres and the town centre.

Neighbourhood structureA neighbourhood is typically defi ned as a 400-metre radius catchment with a shop supplying daily needs, or another type of community focus at its centre (usually taking fi ve minutes to walk along streets to the centre).

Walkability of the town centreWalking is the most energy-effi cient mode of travel. This choice is to be facilitated via an interconnected street network that enables pedestrians a choice of routes at intersections, and accessibility to a wide range of community facilities in an attractive and safe environment.

Walkability to community facilities and public transportAs a measure of effi ciency, at least 60% of the dwellings in a neighbourhood should be within a 400-metre walk of a neighbourhood centre or bus stop, or an 800-metre walk of a railway station or bus terminus.


A perimeter block layout with street frontages and private yards

Parking integrated with surroundings(Source: Mixed Use Developments, Dept. of Tourism, Small Business and Industry)

STAGE TWOLATER ADDITION

OF BUISNESSES

Lot and housing design that accommo-dates change

2.4.2 Mixed Use Town Centre Principles

Safety, security and surveillanceTo reduce opportunities for crime and improve the sense of security, a clear defi nition is required between public places (streets and parks) and building frontages of windows and entrances, and their private backs (rear gardens).

Effi cient and attractive car parking within the urban fabricCar parking should be integrated with surrounding land uses; the capacity should conform to derived demand; and streetscape quality should be maintained.

Facilitating choice, fl exibility and variety in the urban fabricThe urban layout should respond to the current as well as the future needs of society. Buildings and lots should be designed to be adaptable and to accommodate changes in land use or additions expected over time. In existing areas adaptive reuse of buildings is important to consider. Corner lots are especially fl exible as they have more street frontage that may provide more on-street parking and on-site parking, offer increased exposure for businesses and more potential entries for different parts of the building.


n

N

An example of urban water management where public open space and drainage are combined with bushland retention, nutrient stripping and visual surveillance from perimeter roads, footpaths and nearby houses

2.4.3 Other Design Principles

Site responsive design – character and identityLocal identity should be complemented or created by responding to site features, context, landscape and views.

Environmentally and culturally responsive designKey environmental and cultural features should be identifi ed and protected within the design.


3 CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES

3.1 North-West Corridor Strategic and Statutory Context

In 1978, the area now known as Clarkson-Butler was subdivided into 17 superlots and onsold from two properties totalling some 3,000ha owned by Mindarie Property Co. These ranged in area from 60ha to over 400ha. The lands for the district distributor roads including Marmion Ave, Connolly Drive and Lukin Drive, the Mitchell Freeway, and for additional coastal foreshore reserves, were ceded to the Crown as a condition of subdivision.

In 1992 the WAPC fi nalised the North-West Corridor Structure Plan (NWCSP) which was supplemented in 1993 by the Yanchep Structure Plan.

The 1992-93 Corridor Plans identifi ed a number of objectives, and outcomes of:

• urban land for 420,000 residents over a 30-year period;• a target of 60% employment self-suffi ciency;• a Strategic Regional Centre at Joondalup, with Regional Centres at Alkimos and Yanchep,

and District Centres at Clarkson (28,800m²), and Butler (23,500m²);• major industrial areas at Landsdale and Flynn Drive; and• the suburban railway and Mitchell Freeway both extending to Two Rocks and beyond.

Most of the Clarkson-Butler superlots were zoned to ‘Urban’ in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and the district distributor roads to ‘Other Regional Roads’. The Freeway and Lot 17 Tamala Park were not reserved or zoned in accordance with the 1977 Structure Plan, and remained zoned Rural.

Since the late 1980s the WAPC established a program of MRS Amendments to statutorily implement the various corridor structure plans which had been adopted as policy guides. These included Alkimos (1994), Yanchep-Two Rocks (1996) and the balance of Clarkson-Butler (commenced May 1997). The current Clarkson-Butler amendment includes the Mitchell Freeway and reserves for the Northern Suburbs railway extension to Hester Avenue. The railway was not proposed to be reserved in the amendment because its alignment north of Hester Avenue was undetermined.

The current MRS zoning and reservations for the corridor are shown on Figure 1: Study Area in Regional Context.

3.2 Transport Planning Context

Transport planning in the NW Corridor was last reviewed comprehensively in the context of the 1992 North-West Corridor Structure Plan. The current MRS basically refl ects that planning, although there have been some variations and the MRS Amendment now in progress for the Clarkson-Butler area will add in some of the currently missing regional road and rail links, consistent with the North-West Corridor Structure Plan.

In 1997 the Alkimos-Eglinton Structure Plan proposed the downgrading and minor realignment of Marmion Avenue through that area. The WAPC has initiated an MRS Amendment for Alkimos-Eglinton which proposes, among other things, a reduced road reservation for Marmion Avenue to a divided four-lane road (instead of six-lane divided), with implications for the timing of construction of the Mitchell Freeway.


The Northern Suburbs Transit System currently ends at Currambine, but at the date of the charrette was proposed to be extended to Clarkson by 2003. There has been no announcement on whether further extensions may be undertaken. The proposed alignment for major rail facilities under the North-West Corridor Structure Plan was along the western side of the freeway from Currambine to Alkimos, then swinging west of the Freeway at Alkimos north then more centrally through Yanchep-Two Rocks (and ultimately continuing beyond the metropolitan area).

The 1997 Alkimos-Eglinton Structure Plan proposed that the rail alignment should leave the freeway at the southern edge of Alkimos; however, the 1996 Jindalee workshop contemplated this occurring further south still, at Lukin Drive. The rail alignment through Alkimos-Eglinton is therefore not included in the current MRS Amendment being proposed for that area.

The Northern Suburbs Transit System – Currambine to Butler Extension Interim Master Plan (June 2000) proposed the railway to be relocated to the centre of the freeway between Currambine and Ridgewood (Merriwa), then to leave the freeway at Lukin Drive for a new alignment through the centre of the Corridor. The Plan also, however, retained the option of a freeway alignment.

Railway alignment planning is therefore not fi nalised, and one of the key tasks of the Charrette was to examine rail options in more detail, including alignment, the relationship between rail and town centres, and the spacing of stations. This is dealt with in more detail in Section 6.

3.3 Other Major Development Projects in the Corridor

In 1996, LandCorp and Eglinton Estates, major land owners at Alkimos-Eglinton, undertook a detailed district structure planning exercise that revisited planning for this 2,660ha district of the Corridor, adopting similar principles to the Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy that was under preparation at the time. Implementation of the Structure Plan required amendment to the MRS. Following lengthy negotiations to resolve contentious issues, MRS Amendment 1029/33 was initiated in August 2000.

Signifi cant elements of the Amendment include:

• Relocation of the Water Corporation’s proposed 160ha wastewater treatment plant inland from its coastal site to release land for urban development and a coastal node adjacent to a regional beach;

• Changes to the Parks and Recreation Reservations which have implications for Bush Forever.

• The realignment of regional roads including Marmion Avenue (discussed in Section 3.2).

With regard to Yanchep-Two Rocks, in 1995 the WAPC, Tokyu Corporation, Yanchep Sun City P/L and the Western Australian Land Authority entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU included a program of actions for this area, including Urban and Central City Area rezonings and Parks and Recreation and Regional road reservations.

A 1999 St Andrews Strategic Co-operation Agreement was entered into by the State Government, Tokyu Corporation, the City of Wanneroo, Yanchep Sun City P/L and the WAPC. The Agreement describes joint initiatives and co-operation between the parties to investigate and progress various initiatives. The lack of direct road access and absence of rail access were issues highlighted in the Agreement as impediments to the short-term development of the area.

A key objective of the St Andrews project is to engender a high level of employment self-suffi ciency in the area, with the projected provision of 50,000 to 60,000 jobs at St Andrews over 25–30 years, with the fi rst 1,000 of those jobs created over the period 2003–2008.


3.4 Development Context for the Study Area

Since the Jindalee exercise of 1996, most developers in the study area have been reviewing structure planning for their land holdings including undertaking re-designs based on Liveable Neighbourhoods principles, and the concepts prepared during the 1996 Workshop. The Liveable Neighbourhoods approach to future development within the North-West Corridor is also supported by the City of Wanneroo as the local authority.

The Joint Venture received Liveable Neighbourhoods approval for a fi rst stage of its landholding in November 2000 (some 600 lots), on the basis that this initial development phase did not impact on possible options for future rail alignment(s) or the location of town centres.

3.5 Planning Issues and Challenges

The issues and challenges facing the North-West Corridor are summarised below.

The Economy and Employment Self-Suffi ciency: The implications of the end of the industrial economy and its evolution to the post-industrial economy need to be better understood and addressed appropriately through improved planning and integration of land use and transport.

The current low level of employment self-suffi ciency in the NW Corridor places major pressures on existing transport infrastructure as people look to south of the NW Corridor and to central Perth for employment opportunities. The 1992 NWCSP was premised on an employment self-suffi ciency level of 60%; however, the actual level being achieved is little more than 20%. Unless this is substantially improved, transport infrastructure will simply be unable to sustain the demands placed upon it without unacceptable costs and implications for urban form.

Urban Form: The NW Corridor is characterised by many aspects of urban sprawl, including homogeneous suburban development with little choice or variety in housing type and facilities, and with rigidly segregated land uses, contributing to a limited sense of community and place, high levels of car dependence and consequent environmental impacts through greenhouse gas emissions, high energy use, and poor public transport accessibility off the main routes. There are issues about equity of access to services and facilities and the reinforcement of a sense of community that are integral to the debate about future urban form.

Development Pressures: Much of the land in the northern part of the NW Corridor already carries an Urban zoning and appropriate local zonings, and is in a relatively limited number of major ownerships with development already commenced or due to commence in the next fi ve years. Early and binding decisions on fundamental issues such as the future alignment of transport infrastructure are needed to match and co-ordinate development expectations.

Public Transport Planning: Transport planning in the Corridor was last reviewed comprehensively for the 1992 North-West Corridor Structure Plan. The current Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) basically refl ects that planning, although there have been some variations and the MRS amendment now in progress for the Clarkson-Butler area will add in some of the currently missing regional road and rail links. A review of planned transport infrastructure with more emphasis on supporting sustainable urban development is required.


4.0 NEW & EXISTING RESIDENTS SURVEY

As part of their primary research, Macroplan consultants on behalf of the Joint Venture undertook surveys of new residents to Butler (purchasers of land in the Brighton Estate), and surveys of existing residents in Joondalup and Wanneroo, to obtain basic socio-economic data.

A total of 148 new Butler-Brighton purchasers and 305 existing residents of the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo were interviewed to provide information on residential location preferences, neighbourhood character, employment characteristics and travel behaviour.

The major fi ndings are outlined in Appendix 4. In summary, residents were choosing to live at Butler-Brighton primarily because the land is close to the beach (20%), is affordable (15%), and is seen to have good investment potential. While 71% of the Butler-Brighton residents are new home buyers, couples with children are less than half of the total households (46%) and 37% are aged 37 and over.

There is diversity in the demographic make-up, suggesting a greater housing mix could be successful. This indicated that higher densities than are traditionally achieved could be possible in the project area, and that public transport would be supported if an urban context was provided to support it.

With regard to employment, only 17% of the wider survey group travel to Perth, East Perth and West Perth and 21% travel to Joondalup for employment, and 8% work in Wanneroo. This indicates that the North-West Corridor is better self-contained than previously thought. The survey found 81% of residents travel to work by car or motorbike, but 51% would catch public transport to work instead of taking the car or motorbike, if it was available. The fi gure increased to 61% for recreation purposes.

This information formed the basis for the determination of lot size mix and resultant population yields that were used during the charrette to undertake the cost-benefi t analysis. (refer Section 10.1 and Chapter 11).


5.0 SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Introduction

An important charrette objective was the balanced achievement of social, environmental and economic sustainability in the outcomes produced. Five general principles were identifi ed prior to the charrette as guidance for the planning and design process. A number of outcomes and more specifi c actions were developed to refl ect these, as shown on Table 1. The actions, which in particular largely refl ect the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods, were strongly infl uential in the design outcomes.

These fi ve sustainability principles were ‘effi cient’, ‘equitable’, ‘green’, ‘liveable’ and ‘creative’. During the charrette, however, it proved diffi cult to translate these objectives into indicators that would allow meaningful quantitative and qualitative measurement of options.

In particular, there are diffi culties where sustainability objectives potentially confl ict. For example overall increased residential densities and smaller lots increase the population that supports rail patronage (reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved equity and choice), but reduces the likelihood of the retention of native vegetation on individual lots (vegetation protection).

In addition, urban structure will not be sole determinant of the level of sustainability achieved in the study area. In the planning context, sustainability will be determined by three factors: urban structure, built form and by individual/household behaviour. So, for example, street layout can be designed to maximise solar access (urban structure), but construction of individual dwellings to allow northern orientation (built form), and minimal use of air conditioning (behaviour) are all required to deliver sustainability through solar orientation

As outlined in Section 2.0, a major objective of the charrette was the integration of public transport with urban development, as a contributor to environmental sustainability through reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently the cost-benefi t analysis that was undertaken (and is outlined in Section 11) relates primarily to social and economic criteria, with the main environmental criteria relating to the provision of public transport. Howeve, other environmental issues were taken into account through the design work at the charette, and are summarized below. The development of sustainability indicators to enable comparison of plans through sustainability audits would be a valuable addition to evaluation and implementation tools, but was beyond the scope of this project.

5.2 Environmental Context and Issues

Geology, landform and soilsThe environmental context and relevant general and site-specifi c issues are below. The study area has a near coastal setting and consists of a series of sand dune ridges and swales, of Tamala limestone and sand. The limestone in this area is generally free of karsts and caves. Soils are predominantly sandy and are loose and prone to wind erosion when disturbed or denuded. Soils are permeable, so surface run-off is minimal.

The topography of the study area consists of a gently undulating elevated plateau with local relief of up to 30m. The slopes are generally gentle to moderate, mostly in the range of 8% to 12%, although some steeper areas of up to 20% occur. The highest ground (up to 50m AHD) occurs in the north and north-west, while the lowest ground (to 20m AHD) is situated in the south-east and centre of the site.


HydrologyThere are no naturally occurring surface watercourses or water bodies in the study area. An unconfi ned aquifer occurs at an elevation of 1m to 3m AHD and fl ows from east to west beneath the site. The depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 14m below the swales in the east to 40m below the ridges in the north. This area is regarded as moderately vulnerable to groundwater contamination due to the high proportion of sand and limestone.

All of the study area falls within a Priority 3 Source Protection area of the Perth Coastal Underground Water Pollution Control Area (UWPCA). Priority 3 zoning does not place any statutory controls on land use but the Department of Environment, Water and Catchment Protection (DEWCP) recommends that potentially polluting land uses such as fuel storage, service stations and industry be controlled or excluded.

Five unconfi ned aquifer production bores plus three backup bores of the Neerabup Groundwater Scheme (Quinns Borefi eld) occur within or immediately west of the study area. Each bore is surrounded by a 300m radius Wellhead Protection Zone, from which the WRC recommends that land uses such as service stations, industry and unlined infi ltration basins be excluded, and that service stations be excluded from areas directly upstream of production bores (refer Figure 4: Environmental and Vegetation Features). Development and land use will need to be carefully considered in the 300m protection zones.

Vegetation and fl oraA vegetation and fl ora survey of the study area was conducted by botanist Dr Arthur Weston in July 2001 and is summarized on Figure 4. The study area contains a mixture of cleared former farm paddocks and uncleared native vegetation. Remnant vegetation occupies the north-west of Lot 7, most of Lot 8 and the south-east of Lot 33 (land recently excised from Neerabup National Park).

Remnant native vegetation consists of dense coastal heaths on the higher areas with shallow limestone soils, and Tuart and Banksia woodlands in the lower areas with deeper soils, in mostly good to excellent condition.

The vegetation is primarily Cottesloe Complex-Central and South except for the far north-west corner of Lot 8, which is Quindalup Complex. The Cottesloe Complex - Central and South is well represented in the Perth Metropolitan Region, with 36% of its original extent remaining. Fifteen per cent of the complex is currently reserved, while a further 3% is proposed for reservation under Bush Forever.

The study area contains two small areas identifi ed as Floristic Community Type (FCT) 26a : Melaleuca huegelii – M. acerosa Shrublands on Limestone Ridges (Keighery et al., 1994) (refer Figure 4). FCT 26a is listed as endangered on the Department of Conservation and Land Management’s informal Threatened Ecological Community Database. The CALM list does not confer statutory protection on the listed communities; however, the Environmental Protection Authority takes note of listings on the database when assessing proposals.

The occurrence of FCT 26a on Lot 7 was initially set aside for protection as Public Open Space in the approved plan of subdivision for Lot 7. However, this portion of Lot 33, is in a critical location with regard to the Butler Station walkable precinct. Further site evaluation should occur at the local structure planning stage to determine if other sites with similar or greater bushland signifi cance exist which do not impact on station walkable catchments.

The nearest Bush Forever sites, identifi ed as areas of regional signifi cance are Neerabup National Park to the east, and the coastal foreshore reserve sites to the west, which will be retained within Parks and Recreation reservations. A summary of Environmental Features is shown on Figure 4.


Floristic Community Type 26aWater Corporation production or backup boreWellhead Protection Zone

Marm

ion Avenue

Lukin Drive

Wanneroo Road

Figure 4 Environmental and Vegetation Features

NowergupLake

NeerabupNational

Park


Tabl

e1 S

usta

inab

ility

Prin

cipl

es

Prin

cipl

eO

utco

me

Act

ion

Effi c

ient

Red

uce

depe

nden

ce o

n au

tom

obile

s an

d re

sulta

nt tr

ansp

ort e

nerg

y us

age

and

gree

nhou

se

gas

emis

sion

s

Inte

grat

e tra

nspo

rt an

d la

nd u

se to

pro

duce

wal

kabl

e, m

ixed

use

nei

ghbo

urho

ods

Prov

ide

a hi

gh q

ualit

y pu

blic

tran

spor

t sys

tem

Prov

ide

bicy

cle/

wal

k pa

ths

and

faci

litie

s

Clim

ate

resp

onsi

ve b

uild

ing

desi

gn

Ensu

re m

axim

um n

umbe

r of l

ots

orie

nted

on

corre

ct a

xis

Req

uire

bui

ldin

gs to

be

desi

gned

to a

chie

ve m

axim

um p

assi

ve s

olar

hea

ting/

cool

ing

and

light

ing

oppo

rtuni

ties

Effi c

ient

and

effe

ctiv

e ur

ban

wat

er m

anag

emen

t Im

plem

enta

tion

of w

ater

sen

sitiv

e ur

ban

desi

gnEn

cour

agem

ent o

f ‘go

od’ w

ater

use

pra

ctic

es

Effi c

ient

, pro

gres

sive

dev

elop

men

t and

ser

vici

ng

of la

nd

Effi c

ient

use

of i

nfra

stru

ctur

e ca

pita

l

Equi

tabl

eAc

cess

to d

aily

and

wee

kly

need

s w

ithou

t the

us

e of

a c

ar b

y th

e m

ajor

ity o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

Prov

ide

a va

riety

of h

ousi

ng c

lose

ly in

tegr

ated

with

sup

port

serv

ices

and

oth

er u

ses

Varie

ty o

f hou

sing

to m

eet c

hang

ing

dem

ogra

phic

s Pr

ovid

e m

ix o

f lot

siz

es a

nd d

ensi

ties

Hig

h le

vel o

f sub

urba

n em

ploy

men

t inc

ludi

ng

mix

ed u

se d

evel

opm

ents

and

hom

e-ba

sed

busi

ness

Prov

ide

varie

ty o

f lan

d us

es, l

ot s

izes

and

stre

et la

yout

s

Equi

tabl

e m

obilit

y th

roug

h an

effi

cien

t pub

lic

trans

port

syst

em

Prov

ide

an e

ffi ci

ent a

nd e

ffect

ive

publ

ic tr

ansp

o rt s

yste

m


Live

able

Prov

ide

a m

ovem

ent

netw

ork

that

pr

ovid

es

bala

nced

ac

cess

fo

r al

l m

odes

an

d su

ppor

ts

pers

onal

saf

ety

Stre

et la

yout

to p

rovi

de:

perim

eter

blo

cks

high

leve

l of i

nter

nal a

cces

sibi

lity

with

goo

d ex

tern

al c

onne

ctio

nsde

velo

pmen

t fro

nts

to a

ll st

reet

s, p

arks

and

nat

ural

are

as

Soci

al in

tera

ctio

n an

d co

mm

unity

form

atio

n

Prov

ide

for c

omm

unity

focu

s po

ints

and

ser

vice

s su

ch a

s sh

ops,

med

ical

and

hea

lth

faci

litie

s,lib

rarie

sPa

rks

with

chi

ld fa

cilit

ies,

caf

es

Supp

ortiv

e ph

ysic

al e

nviro

nmen

t for

exe

rcis

e Pr

ovid

e pl

aces

to w

alk

to a

nd fa

cilit

ies

that

allo

w fo

r act

ive

recr

eatio

n

Cre

ativ

eD

istin

ctiv

e, h

igh

qual

ity,

vita

l, sa

fe a

nd a

ttrac

tive

‘24

hour

’ citi

es a

nd s

ubur

bs w

here

peo

ple

can

live,

w

ork

and

shop

Des

ign

a co

mm

unity

with

: co

mm

unity

focu

s at

cen

tre c

onta

inin

g es

sent

ial s

ervi

ces;

lot d

iver

sity

and

var

iety

acce

ssib

le s

treet

net

wor

k sy

stem

Inst

itutio

nal

faci

litie

s th

at

supp

ort

crea

tivity

, in

form

atio

n sh

arin

g an

d ge

nera

tion

Allo

w fo

r inc

lusi

on o

f ‘cr

eativ

e pl

aces

’ suc

h as

uni

vers

ities

, bus

ines

s ce

ntre

s, c

entre

s of

exc

elle

nce

etc.

Gre

enIn

clus

ion

of k

ey n

atur

al fe

atur

es

Ensu

re p

rote

ctio

n of

regi

onal

bus

hlan

dEn

sure

pro

tect

ion

of lo

cal b

ushl

and

Ret

entio

n of

sig

nifi c

ant n

atur

al la

ndsc

ape

feat

ures

incl

udin

g co

asta

l are

as w

ith p

rovi

sion

of a

dequ

ate

setb

acks

for c

oast

al p

roce

sses

and

clim

ate

chan

ge

Effe

ctiv

e an

d us

eful

ope

n sp

aces

In

corp

orat

e ac

tive

recr

eatio

n ar

eas

“Gre

en” s

ubur

bs a

nd c

omm

erci

al a

reas

Ret

ain

sign

ifi ca

nt tr

ees

Req

uire

stre

et p

lant

ing

in m

ajor

cen

tres

Prom

ote

nativ

e ga

rden

s

Tabl

e1 (c

ont.)

: Sus

tain

abili

ty P

rinci

ples


Local bushland retention was identifi ed by the City of Wanneroo as needing addressing through the charrette. However, in producing a charrette design, objectives of local bushland retention were identifi ed at an early stage as needing to be considered in the wider sustainability context, and balanced against other, environmental, economic and social sustainability objectives.

Fauna

No site-specifi c fi eld survey has been conducted over the study area. However, the condition and coverage of vegetation indicates the site contains feeding and breeding habitats for a variety of native fauna species. Western Grey Kangaroos are the largest native animals commonly seen at the site. Introduced species including rabbits, foxes and cats are also likely to be present.

The CALM 1999 Threatened Fauna database indicates that Carnaby’s Cockatoo is the only Schedule 1 species (species that are rare or likely to become extinct) known to occur in the area. This species is a seasonal visitor to the area and uses the Banksia woodlands as prime feeding areas during the summer and autumn months. It does not, however, breed in the area.

Two Schedule 4 species (fauna that is otherwise specially protected) are known to occur in the area. The Peregrine Falcon may occur as a vagrant in the area, either in open woodlands or around lake margins. The Carpet Python has been recorded from low heaths and Banksia woodland that grow in the area. Three Priority Four species have previously been recorded in the area. The Southern Brown Bandicoot has been recorded within the area, and also from locations immediately to the south where suitable low heath or shrub communities persist. The Western Brush Wallaby may occur at low density in Banksia woodlands and tall shrublands. Hylaeus globuliferus (a native bee) has been recorded from woollybush heaths just south of this area and, given the nature of vegetation communities in the area, it is possible that this species may also occur within the subject land.

Heritage

An Aboriginal heritage survey was conducted on Lots 7 and 8 in 1990. No sites of archaeological or ethnographic signifi cance, as defi ned by Section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 – 1980, were located in the survey area. A search of the Aboriginal Affairs Department’s Aboriginal Sites Register found no recorded sites in the overall study area.


6 TRANSPORT OPTIONS

A major objective of the charrette was to understand how the area could be best served by public transport in the future, both short and long term; and how the district’s road network could accommodate future travel demands in a balanced way so as not to undermine urban design, integration and amenity outcomes.

A key issue was the relative merits and possible alignments of light rail, busway or metro (heavy) rail options, both in terms of the Butler to Alkimos district and the sub-region extending north to Alkimos, Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks.

6.1 Public Transport

A guiding document for Metropolitan Perth transit provision is the 1995 Metropolitan Transit Strategy (MTS). The MTS established increased public transport mode share targets (from 6.4% to 12.5% of all types by 2029) and reduced trip lengths (from 8.4km to 7.2km by 2029). These targets were adopted as part of efforts to limit the current trends in terms of infrastructure costs, land impacts and energy resource consumption.

The charrette was to explore how these public transport targets might be achieved, particularly by promoting local employment self-suffi ciency to reduce trip length.

Two studies were undertaken prior to the charrette to inform the charrette process. The Brighton Transit Alignment Options Study (Sinclair Knight Merz, August 2001) outlined possible alignments for three technology options: metro rail, light rail and bus; and provided specifi cation information, preliminary costs and information on travel time estimates and model transfer issues. The Brighton Transit Patronage Forecasting Study (SKM, August 2001) examined rail trip generation at existing rail stations to assist in analysing charrette transit options. The conclusions of the Transit Alignment Options Study are outlined in Appendix 5.

As the charrette progressed, and information became available on employment, population, urban centres, commercial nodes, and household structure, a consensus was reached that the extension of the existing rail system was likely to provide the greatest community benefi t.

The main reasons behind this consensus were:

Transfer Penalties

People leaving the study area to travel to the south by rail (to Perth City, Joondalup or other locations) would need to transfer between vehicles if either a bus-based system or a light rail system were to be adopted. This adds signifi cantly to the journey time. In addition to the actual increase in time, there is evidence that transfers are perceived negatively by users. It was considered that this disbenefi t would result in reduced patronage for public transport users travelling through the area and those leaving the area to travel to the south.

Equity and mode consistency

The major benefi t of a light rail or busway system, as compared to a metro rail system, is their ability to provide stops closer to a greater number of residents and businesses in the area. This leads to a higher density of development along a continuing corridor with rapid transit stops at around one kilometre spacings. As the charrette progressed, it become apparent that continuous frontal high density residential development was not envisaged and that there was only scope for


two true multi-functional centres in the area – one at Brighton and one at a re-positioned Alkimos, some two kilometres to the north of Romeo Road.

Urban Form

A view was expressed that any major change of rapid transit mode from metro rail to either busway or light rail should be planned to occur at a major regional centre such as Joondalup. The current commitments to extend the existing metro rail to Clarkson would result in considerable duplication of infrastructure between Clarkson and Joondalup if a decision were made to anchor a light rail or a busway system at Joondalup.

Mode Transfer Locations

On the assumption that Perth’s northern suburbs will continue to expand to the north to Yanchep, Two Rocks and potentially beyond, there was a view that a fast rail system similar to the current system may eventually be required. For equity and other reasons, future northern corridor residents would be likely to lobby for a rail system similar to that serving other major corridors in Perth. In the longer term, this could result in two rapid transit systems running parallel to each other – a light rail or busway system within the corridor and a metro rail system on the freeway alignment.

In developing and evaluating design options, the objective then became the development of a metro rail system that could be integrated within the urban area and generate suffi cient patronage to justify construction in the short to medium term.

Design objectives for the metro rail that were identifi ed to meet patronage targets and operational requirements were:

• Around 4,000 households being situated within a 1km radius of each rail station.• Street layout to be permeable and direct to minimise walking distance to rail stations.• The number of households in the study area to be increased to increase rail patronage.• Rail station spacing to be about 2km to balance the need to maximise walk-on patronage

against ensuring reasonable travel times, assuming the rail would ultimately continue to Yanchep (that is, reduce station spacing)

• The rail alignment to be constructed in a narrow reserve, mainly in cut, to reduce impacts and severance. The reserve is indicatively reducing to 25 metres from the conventional 40m Perth ‘standard’ reservation. The minimum width at the bottom of a cutting would be 16.6m.

• Curve radius to generally accommodate train speeds of 110 and up to 130kph (consistent with recently ordered rail stock for the Southern Suburbs extension). Notionally a minimum 800m radius was used for design purposes.

• Stations to be located on straight sections of track for operational ease including disabled access.

• Central platforms to allow for single entry points and platforms 150m long to accommodate six car train sets.

• A minimum clearance of 5.3m from the top of the highest rail to the underside of structures, increasing to 5.7m at stations.

• The vertical gradient below 2.0% wherever possible, and below 1.0% at stations.• Four-lane and two-lane bridges are required, all with a 2m-wide footpath on each side.


6.2 Road Network

The strategic road network for the North-West corridor is refl ected in the MRS as shown on Figure 1. The Mitchell Freeway is currently constructed at four lanes to Hodges Drive, with its reservation extending to the northern boundary of the metropolitan area to join the Perth-Lancelin road. The reservation is designed to cater for an ultimate six lanes (100 metres width). Current volumes on the Freeway south of Ocean reef road are 48,370. The Freeway is proposed to be extended to Shenton Avenue by 2006 and to Burns Beach Road by 2008. Preliminary indications are that the Freeway would not be extended to Lukin Drive until after 2015.

The Freeway reservation is planned with intersections at minimum spacings of two kilometres, feeding into the district distributor road network. A particular issue that required consideration at the charrette was how well freeway intersections and the feeder district distributor streets provided direct access into future town centres.

Wanneroo road is the other Primary Regional Road that currently provides some access to the area, although access is via Hester Avenue/Quinns Road at present. This is currently four lanes to Pinjar road to the south, with sections of two and four lanes beyond.

The district distributor road network, indicated as ‘Other Regional Roads’ in the MRS, comprises Marmion Avenue and Connolly Drive north-south, and Lukin Drive and Romeo Road east-west. Further north, the east-west routes of Alkimos Drive and Eglinton Avenue connect Marmion Avenue to the Freeway. These district distributor routes are planned for four lanes within 60 metre reserves. Marmion Avenue has been indicated as having potential for six lanes, although this would have signifi cant implications in terms of traffi c impacts to the south, integration of land east and west of Marmion Avenue and the character of adjacent urban land.

Connolly Drive is part constructed in two sections to the south. Marmion Avenue provides the main north-south route, connecting Brighton to the southern portions of the North-West Corridor. Traffi c volumes on Marmion Avenue north of Burns Beach road in 1998-1999 were 23,460 vpd.

The southern sections of Marmion Avenue are built primarily with lots backing onto this regional route; however, the fi rst stage of Brighton was approved with lots fronting and service road or frontage road treatment to manage access. Main Roads WA preferred spacings for traffi c signals on regional routes such as Marmion Avenue is generally two kilometres, but less when the route passes through a town centre. A challenge for the charrette was designing these regional routes to still perform their regional road functions, but as integrating rather than dividing elements, recognising the economic and employment benefi ts that commercial development derives from selective and well designed arterial road frontage.


7 CENTRE AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

7.1 Centre Issues

7.1.1 Introduction

A principle established early for the charrette, and outlined in Chapter 2.1, was that centres were to be developed as mixed use centres in the form of village or town centres, and not as stand-alone shopping centres. The basis for this objective was to facilitate a higher level of public domain performance, a greater mix of uses in the area, higher levels of walkability and public transport use, better job containment around these centres, and generally improved social, environmental and economic performance.

7.1.2 Jindalee Workshop Outcomes

The preferred Option C of the Jindalee 1996 workshops (refer Figure 2) proposed two towns of similar size within the notional trade area between Alkimos and Clarkson. These centres were justifi ed on the basis of detailed density calculations as a consequence of the Enquiry-by-Design process of the time.

The Jindalee Workshop also proposed realigning the rail corridor from its proposed mid-freeway alignment on the edge of the corridor to a point in the middle of the corridor, providing improved walk-on catchment for future rail operations.

The combination of the move of the rail corridor, plus the proposed increased density as a consequence of the Workshop, created the opportunity for another mixed use town (in addition to the proposed Butler town centre) at Jindalee. However, as the development front for the corridor is now well within the infl uence of both proposed towns, it was considered important to revisit the conclusions of the 1996 Workshop and especially the assumptions relating to the two proposed town centres.

7.1.3 Populations and Retail Catchments

Each town in the corridor, including the new ‘town’ at Clarkson called Ocean Keys (although it is more of a shopping centre than a town) is functionally defi ned by a retail trade area that takes into account regional movement patterns and competitive trade dynamics. Retail catchments are reasonably simple to defi ne, and provide a starting point for future town centre roles and functions. However, whilst retail catchments might provide a basis for retail fl oor space provision, it is important to recognise that a number of other infl uences determine how these towns and other centres in the area might develop over time.

The attractiveness of seaside towns along the corridor will infl uence the retail role and the level of retail that may be provided. Consequently, if control of retail fl oor space in the area was to be promoted on the basis of a desire to support the principles of economic viability and equity of access, then it would be appropriate to allow seaside towns or villages to increase their levels of retail fl oor space commensurate with the expected level of additional visitation to the area. This visitation would be additional to the natural, residentially-based catchment.

This philosophy applies to all locations in the area, as regional and local movement patterns as well as notional retail catchments should inform a place-based philosophy for the amount of retail in each centre.


The other infl uence of town centre role and function is the need to generate a town that provides more than just a shopping centre role. In principle this means that regional structure is an important infl uence on long term sustainability. The town’s level of access to rail and other public transport, the level of regional traffi c, the level of amenity, the detailing of the relationships between buildings and the street and the level to which walkability and density provide a strong public domain, are all critical to providing a strong economic base for jobs.

Latest international research is showing that amenity and quality of life is a critical factor in economic development. Consequently, a well performing town with high amenity is necessary for competitive economic infrastructure. The critical elements of economic infrastructure are:

• Accessible technology• Skilled workforce• Available capital• Advanced physical infrastructure• Pro-competitive regulatory climate• High quality of life

Analysis of retail catchments, leading to the ability of town centre retail to perform in a competitive market with some level of security, is an important factor in the creation of amenity. A well performing town street, with active and successful retail at ground level is necessary in order to create the atmosphere and energy required to improve quality of life and inspire jobs. Consequently the retail catchment should be conservatively described so that the retail can perform an inspirational role for the town.

7.2 Employment Trends and Implications

7.2.1 Introduction

A major charette objective was the creation of a context for (local) employment creation, to move closer towards the 60% employment self suffi ciency target of the NWCSP, and reduce car-based travel. A key outcome then is providing suffi cient employment to match the growth in resident workforce that will be created by residential development in the Brighton district.

7.2.2 Employment Characteristics of the Outer North-West Corridor

Overall employment provided in the corridors of Perth has not generated suffi cient jobs for the growing resident workforce. The result has been an increasingly unsustainable reliance on long distance commuting and increasing congestion on the freeways of Perth.

The outer North-West Suburbs are developing essentially as dormitory suburbs. The ratio of jobs to the resident workforce more than halved in the North-West Corridor between 1961 and 1991, falling from 75% to under 36%. By 1991, this corridor was performing worse than any other Corridor and well below the job self-suffi ciency average of 55% for all the corridors in the Perth metropolitan area.

At the same time, the population has been growing more than in any other corridor with the resultant growth in the resident workforce being located more distant from the Central Perth and other major concentrations of employment in the Perth metropolitan area.

By 1996, the part of the Outer North-West Corridor comprising the City of Wanneroo and Joondalup (with its Regional Centre) only had jobs for 41% of its resident workforce.


However, 24% of these local jobs went to those living outside the area. Therefore, only 76%, of the relatively few, local jobs were taken by local residents. This left 59% of the 1996 resident workforce commuting to more distant jobs.

Approximately equal numbers travelled to jobs in the City of Perth and the City of Stirling. Each day, 19% of the resident workforce, (16,400 people) travelled to each of these destinations daily. These two destinations provided more jobs for residents of Joondalup/Wanneroo in 1996, than the number of jobs provided within the combined Joondalup/Wanneroo local government area.

The more rural City of Wanneroo area provided jobs equivalent to 61% of its resident workforce in 1996, even when the employment in the Strategic Regional Centre of Joondalup is excluded. The level of job self-suffi ciency for the City of Wanneroo in 1996 was equivalent to the 60% job self-suffi ciency target. Some 87% of these jobs went to residents of Wanneroo; only 13% to those living elsewhere. Therefore, 53% of resident workers were employed in the local area with 47% commuting to jobs outside the Wanneroo area.

The area now comprising the City of Joondalup had a resident workforce of 64,750 in 1996 and provided over 22,200 jobs. Thus the Joondalup resident workforce was over three times the resident workforce living in the City of Wanneroo; however, Joondalup provided less than twice the number of jobs provided in the City of Wanneroo.

Thus employment in the City of Joondalup area (even with its Strategic Regional Centre activities) was only equivalent to 34% of the resident workforce, forcing Joondalup residents to commute elsewhere.

Some 30% of these Joondalup jobs went to commuters living outside the Joondalup area. Consequently, only 24% of the resident workforce found employment in the area and 76% commuted outside the area. This was despite Joondalup being a major employment destination, and developing as a Strategic Regional Centre providing a broad range of diverse employment opportunities.

The year 2000 Department of Transport (now DPI) Travel Survey indicates that long distance commuting is still common for Joondalup residents. While 12,000 (18.6%) of the Joondalup resident workforce commuted daily to the nearby City of Stirling, over 15,600 (24%) of workers travelled to central Perth and a similar number to Subiaco.

Over 3,500 (5.5%) of the Joondalup resident workforce worked in the City of Canning and similar number in the City of Belmont. Over 3,000 (4.7%) of Joondalup residents work in the municipalities of Nedlands, Cottesloe and Fremantle. Some commuted even further, with over 2,100 members of the Joondalup resident workforce commuted across the Perth metropolitan area, to some other outer metropolitan area for employment each day.

In addition to travel distances, year 2000 travel surveys show that Joondalup residents were spending the equivalent of 22% of the time they spent at their destination (including their time at work) in travelling to that destination.

7.2.3 Commuting and the Outer North West Corridor

It is clear that development in the outer North-West Corridor is presently providing residential areas with relatively few employment opportunities. The result is ‘commuter suburbs’ providing principally ‘dormitory’ functions, and high reliance of residents on daily commuting to distant jobs.

Rapid residential development is continually increasing the number of resident workers. However,


growth in resident workforce is not being matched by the generation of equivalent employment in the North-West Corridor. Jobs are being created at only about one-third of the increase in resident workforce resulting from recent residential development in the outer North-West Corridor.

Consequently, reliance on long distance commuting is increasing, not decreasing as the population in the corridor grows. This is despite the early creation of large numbers of higher order jobs and services at the Joondalup Strategic Regional Centre. The ability to supply these jobs is being swamped by the rapid growth in the resident population needing gainful employment.

As population is increasing, there has been an increase in ‘cross-commuting’ with a greater share of local jobs going to those living elsewhere in the metropolitan area. The degree of ‘cross-commuting’ is high in Joondalup with its higher order, higher skilled and higher income employment. Here, some 30% of local jobs have gone to people living outside the local area, compared to only a 13% loss of local jobs to outsiders in the remainder of the Region.

These employment self-suffi ciency fi ndings are consistent with research elsewhere into population following employment in both South-East Queensland and metropolitan Perth. These investigations found that up to 35% of the resident workforce are employed in ‘population driven’ jobs that are naturally expected to follow the movement of residential population into outer metropolitan suburbs, provided suitable locations are provided for such employment.

7.2.4 Implications Based on Broader Employment Trends

Continuing residential development, without provision for signifi cant local employment, means long distance commuting will have to continue to increase if unemployment is to be avoided in the outer North-West Corridor. However, it is unlikely that the present highway and rail system serving the corridor can effi ciently match the commuting patterns being generated. The destinations are becoming more dispersed throughout the metropolitan area, with less concentration on Central Perth and other locations conveniently reached by public transport.

More fundamentally, reliance on long distance commuting requires full-time, well-paid jobs. These types of jobs are rapidly disappearing with increases in part-time, low wage and casual employment, so that reliance on long distance commuting is becoming more problematical and increasingly unsustainable.

The long term sustainability of essentially dormitory, ‘commuter suburbs’ is becoming increasingly questionable given ‘post-industrial’ employment trends and the changes taking place in the nature of employment. Employment is moving substantially towards part-time, casual and low paid jobs. There is a marked complementary shift to ‘enterprising households’ that rely on members engaged in multiple employment. These enduring trends mean that if jobs are not found locally, there will almost inevitably be substantial, long term ‘involuntary unemployment’, lower real household incomes, reduced personal wealth and increasing social problems in outer metropolitan areas.

The increase in proportion of part-time jobs has been an enduring feature of employment growth in Australia, like other Western economies, since the 1980s. As at June 2000, 28% of West Australian employment was part time. In 1998, full-time male employment increased by only 200 jobs throughout West Australia, whilst part-time male jobs increased by 4,900. By June 2000, some 48% of women in the West Australian workforce worked part time, as did 13% of males.

This trend to part-time employment partly refl ects life style and work preferences. Surveys by the ABS established that, even during the depth of the 1990s recession, relatively few people working less than 35 hours per week wanted to work longer. This was confi rmed in the year 2000, when the ABS found only one-fi fth (20%) of part-time workers wanted to work more hours.


Most of the increase in employment is going to women. Participation rates for women are gradually increasing (up from 50% in 1989 to 54% in 1999) nationally, whilst those for men are declining slightly faster (down from 75% to 73% over the same period). In 1998, 78% of the increased employment in Western Australia went to women. Most of these jobs (64%) were part time. Some 63% of those wanting to work more hours in the year 2000 ABS survey were women.

In addition, casualisation of employment has increased substantially. Casual jobs accounted for 56% of the net growth in employment in Australia between 1984 and 1999. Consequently, casual employees increased nationally from 16% of employees in 1984, to 26% in 1999, and in Western Australia to 25% in 1999. Casual workers today are only slightly more likely to be female (55%), than male (45%). In Western Australia, 21% of male employees and 30% of females were employed casually by the year 2000.

There has also been a dramatic increase in contracting, so that some 25% of workers work on their own account. Many of these are relatively ‘footloose’ because they have multiple employers, or have specialised skills in short supply. Consequently, they are able to live wherever they wish and can afford. Members of the rapidly emerging ‘enterprising households’ are likely to have multiple part-time and casual jobs, with many employers, distributed throughout the metropolitan area, and beyond.

At the same time there has been a ‘hollowing out’ of incomes resulting in a rapid collapse in the number of middle income earners in relatively well paid jobs. Between 1976 and 1990, most new jobs (70 %) were provided in the bottom 20% of incomes and relatively few (18 %) in the top 20% of incomes. It makes little sense to commute long distances to temporary and casual, part-time jobs offering a few hours employment for little income, especially for women, carers and single parents – particularly if they have to bear additional child minding costs.

The combined affect of all these infl uences is of increasingly involuntary unemployment and social problems if jobs are not to be found locally.

The ability to fi nd a casual job in another part of the metropolitan area will become increasingly diffi cult. The ability, and willingness to travel long distances to casual and part-time, low-income jobs outside the central city will reduce employment. There will be increasing competition for local jobs. At the same time, employers are more likely to favour employing those that live locally rather than those living further away – especially for part-time, or casual employment and for jobs that involve working odd hours.

Travel costs and time are also relevant; as are the environmental, congestion and infrastructure cost of long distance commuting to dispersed destinations. These are magnifi ed by the cost of low-income households operating private vehicles. Therefore, it is increasingly important to increase local employment self-suffi ciency by providing more jobs for the resident workforce and improving job self-containment by providing opportunities for local residents to work locally.

An objective for the development of Butler-Brighton should therefore be a realistic approach to capturing suffi cient additional ‘footloose’ employment to achieve over 60% local job self-suffi ciency, within about 8km of where those people will live.


7.2.5 Potential Sources of Suburban Employment Growth

The least opportunities for greater local employment growth in outer metropolitan areas are to be found in tailoring development to meet the needs of small business, especially in the service sector. It is these sectors that have consistently generated the most employment growth, nationally, since the mid-1980s, and in Western Australia particularly since 1990. They are most likely to continue to do so in the future as both Australian and Western Australian economies continue their ‘post-industrial’ growth and the service based ‘new economy’ continues to expand.

There are considered to be realistic opportunities to achieve over 60% local job self-suffi ciency in outer metropolitan Perth by:

• providing suitable suburban business locations;• designing developments to support small service-sector business; • attracting ‘footloose’ tertiary offi ce employment;• creating ‘superior business settings’; and• concentrating activity to create business opportunities.

7.2.6 Service Sector Employment Growth and Opportunities

The service economy accounts for 68% of Australian employment (excluding the utilities, construction and wholesaling sectors), and over 53% if retailing is also excluded. The fastest growing sectors of the national economy from 1985 to the year 2000 were:

• Business and Property Services: 135% (excluding the ‘big business’ sectors of fi nance, banking and insurance)

• Hospitality (including cafes and restaurants): 95%• Recreational Services: 93%• Personal Services: 66%

These are essentially the small business end of the rapidly growing service sector component of the economy.

Business Services and Property have been the fastest growing sector of the Australian economy for the past decade. They already account for 11% of national employment, compared with retailing 15%, manufacturing 13% and health and community services combined at 9% (2000).

The occupational groups with the largest number of employed persons in Australia are professionals (18%), followed by intermediate level clerical, sales and service workers (17.1%), compared with tradespersons and related workers at 13%. Employment in Recreational, Personal and Other Services; Community Services; Wholesale and Retail Trades are projected to grow above the national average to the year 2010 at least.

The growth in expenditure on personal services has also been most marked in household spending since 1980. Household disposable income is being directed increasingly to services rather than to retailing. In the period 1981 to 1995 retail expenditure declined from 67% to 37% of disposable income; and services expenditure increased in the same period from 23% to 63%.

This trend in purchasing behaviour, combined with the decline in discretionary expenditure from middle-income groups and many women no longer being at home, has put increasing stress on suburban retailing. This has been felt most markedly by small and medium sized suburban shopping centres that provide retail functions.


It is no longer acceptable merely to plan for and provide local retailing, fast food and vehicle services in the suburbs, then rely on long distance commuting to deliver the required employment needed by the resident workforce, as in the past.

Sustainable, suburban employment outcomes depend on growing the area’s own small service sector businesses and attracting ‘footloose’ service sector employment. Strong employment growth is consistently coming from the small business end of the rapidly growing service sector component of the economy.

Small businesses created 82% of net employment growth over the last three years nationally and small businesses currently account for 97% of all businesses and 41% of employees (excluding employers and the self-employed). Small businesses now account for 98% of all private sector businesses in Western Australia and 51% of the private sector workforce.

Less than 10% of fi rms in Western Australia (9.6%) have 20 or more employees. Over 90% have fewer than 20 employees.

Employment in micro-businesses (employing fewer than 5 persons) has grown over 50% in the last three years in Western Australia. The number of these businesses has grown at an average rate of over 5% p.a. nationally over the last decade. Again the strongest growth has been in Property and Business Services (10% p.a.), followed Education, Finance and Insurance, and Transport and Storage (each growing at 9% p.a.).

7.2.7 Self-Employment and Home-Based Businesses

Self-employment is taking over from traditional employment. It has grown strongly in Western Australia over the last decade, averaging 5% p.a. growth. Just under a quarter of all West Australian small business employment (24%) comprises self-employed people with no employees (that is, single person fi rms and businesses using unpaid help).

In the three years to 1998–9, non-employing micro-businesses accounted for 53% of small business growth in Western Australia (compared with 44% nationally).

Some 58% of small businesses in Australia are home-based. Over half of existing home-based business operators work full time in their business and over half are male. For the fi rst time, males are establishing more new home-based businesses than females. Over half of home-based businesses are newly established (less than three years old). A third of home-based businesses have one or more employees.

Clearly, more sustainable local and regional employment outcomes depend on successfully tapping into all these sources of rapid small business and service sector employment growth.

The challenges for the charrette, then, were in acknowledging the changing trends in employment to more part-time, contract, casual and footloose employment, and in establishing a context for supporting small business, and particularly service-based business, in the development of the area. In addition, it was acknowledged that the creation of a high amenity urban environment had the potential to attract those who could live where they wished, and potentially could bring their businesses with them.


8 SUB-REGIONAL STRUCTURE - DESIGN OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT

8.1 Sub-Regional structure: The Starting Point – the three 1996 Jindalee Workshop Options

The three regional structure options produced during the Jindalee Design Workshop in 1996 were used as a point of departure in developing options for testing and review in the Butler-Brighton Charrette.

The main variable in the Jindalee options was the location of the railway line and its associated stations, together with the distribution of town and neighbourhood centres located in response to this major element of transport infrastructure. Some of the options also proposed variations to the urban arterial network.

The three options developed (refer Figure 2) were:• Option A: Rail along Freeway, with major town centres at Butler and Alkimos; with the

Alkimos Town Centre isolated from its railway station. This represented the current strategic planning position;

• Option B: Rail pulled into the urban corridor to run along the Connelly Drive route, with major town centres at Butler and Alkimos, and a smaller town centre at Jindalee; Marmion Avenue pulled eastward to serve Jindalee;

• Option C: Rail central to the urban corridor, generally aligned between Marmion Ave and Connolly Drive, with major town centres at Jindalee and Alkimos, and a smaller one at Butler.

In the Alkimos area, both Option B and Option C proposed relocation of a planned large sewerage treatment plant away from a prominent site on the coast.

In the Jindalee workshop, Option C was the preferred option, as it maximised station access for the whole area and provided an optimal urban structure for a Jindalee town centre in the middle of the growth area. It also provided a station in the heart of the Alkimos Town Centre, and it required minimal relocation of Marmion Avenue.

Option C was then worked up in detail showing street networks, neighbourhood structure and indicative land uses, on the basis of optimum sustainable development principles. The focus was on residential density, relatively self-suffi cient jobs provision, walkability, high public transport levels of service and good travel mode split.

These options were used to inform the Liveable Neighbourhoods Community Design Code for urban growth throughout WA. As such, Option C represented a theoretical ideal for which to aim for in structuring sustainable urban development at the sub-regional level, rather than necessarily being a fully realisable outcome for the Butler-Alkimos area.

8.2 Key Infl uences on the Proposed Sub-Regional Structure

The charrette aimed to produce a preferred sub-regional structure, derived from one or more new options that were realistically achievable. These options would be derived from the earlier Jindalee options after taking into consideration additional design infl uences, and would then be modelled and quantifi ed across a wide range of parameters to determine the preferred option.


The primary focus for resolving an agreed sub-regional structure was to provide certainty for the area south of Romeo Rd, while retaining fl exibility for the Alkimos-Eglinton area to the north. These northern areas were to be considered, but in a manner that did not unduly restrict future structure options in that area.

The design principles to be applied were specifi ed as those in the Liveable Neighbourhoods Community Design Code, with a focus on optimising a transit-supportive town and neighbourhood structure, that could be implemented at all scales from sub-regional to local. The process began by identifying the range of new or changed factors that would infl uence the urban structure. These factors included:

• the results of a detailed technical analysis of possible rail routes through the corridor, conducted by SKM prior to the charrette, providing information on topography infl uences, rail curvatures, route length, etc;

• the desirability of providing an urban structure that could enable the rail to be extended to Butler in the relatively short term (by around 2006) to serve an established residential catchment;

• the need to ensure that any central rail route and its core station precincts would not be compromised by early development;

• recognition that the residential density to be achieved is likely to be considerably less (about 60-70%) of that proposed in the Jindalee Workshop, as housing is already going in, well in advance of any urban services and public transport infrastructure;

• incorporation of the currently approved development stages (some already under construction) on the Butler-Brighton Joint Venture land, and appreciation of the need to ensure that practical further development stages could continue to be released in response to the market, while awaiting fi nalisation of the corridor’s infrastructure;

• appreciation of the lower land values anticipated for land east of the railway line compared with that on the western (beach) side, and the developers’ desire to limit such land commensurate with gaining the benefi ts of a central rail route;

• the recent acquisition of the northern coastal lot (Lot 9) by the Joint Venture, and the consequent opportunity that presented for realignment of Marmion Ave in that section, if found to be benefi cial;

• recognition that the ownership of most of the land east of Marmion Ave is now consolidated into the Butler- Brighton Joint Venture. This has removed the previous pressure for a large-scale retail development to be provided at Butler in accordance with earlier planning commitments and separate land ownerships;

• consideration of the relatively advanced plans prepared for the central and southern coastal properties of Estates Development Company (Lot 10) and Colin Heath (Lot 12);

• appreciation that the Mitchell Freeway was unlikely to be extended to the area within the next ten or more years, which would mean it would not be built during the life of the Joint Venture project, and that Marmion Ave would be the primary corridor;

• appreciation of the recent agreements reached by the Eglinton-Alkimos Joint Venture regarding the sewerage treatment plant on the coast. It could not be totally relocated, but a new design has reduced its size considerably, and pulled its core back from the coast. It is now likely that a coastal settlement at Alkimos Beach may proceed in the next two to three years;

• recognising that an amendment to the MRS is well-advanced for various matters relating to the Alkimos-Eglinton Joint Venture land (including the revised sewerage treatment plant, open space designations and arterial road alignments);

• the re-naming of the ‘Jindalee’ Town Centre to the ‘Brighton’ Town Centre.


These factors were fed into the development of various options for a rail corridor relatively central to the urban corridor. In addition, they contributed to defi ning a workable urban structure for an option that retained the rail on the Freeway alignment. In addition to the rail route alignment, key issues addressed in the options development included:

• station frequency and locations, including their potential to support strong transit-supportive urban nodes;

• a town and neighbourhood structure that would limit travel and support relative self-containment for the area’s residents;

• the number, size and alignment of arterial routes, and the potential for deleting or narrowing some of the MRS 60 metre-wide regional road reserves;

• distribution and number of schools, to ensure that secondary schools could be served by stations without the school unduly constraining intensive walkable development around the stations, and that primary schools were located well outside station precincts (because of their low use of public transport);

• effi cient provision of active and passive parkland areas, with larger areas located outside core station precincts, (as few parks and sportsfi elds attract much public transport ridership);

• protection of the most important bushland areas, while recognising the sustainability contribution of well-located relatively dense urbanism where potential confl ict exists between bushland preservation and transit-supportive urban development;

• location of possible industrial areas; and• providing suffi cient areas with potential for diverse business development.

The sub-regional structure covered a larger area than that in the Jindalee workshop, to include not only Alkimos, but also all of the Eglinton Estates land. This was principally because the lower population density meant that the town centres of both Butler/Brighton/Jindalee and Alkimos were more dependent on their catchments to the north than previously, and this potentially affected the location and size of an Eglinton town centre, and its possible station location.

8.3 The Four Options Prepared – Options 1 and 2 (Rail along Freeway) and Options 3 and 4 (Rail within Urban Corridor)

Four sub-regional structure options were designed for the corridor. These were: • Option 1: Rail alignment generally along the Freeway as far as Romeo Rd, then cutting

in to serve Alkimos Town Centre in the parabolic dune, with another major town centre at Butler and a smaller town centre at Jindalee-by-the-Sea. (Figure 5) This generally represented the ‘status quo’ situation for centres as currently incorporated into the MRS and the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme.

• Option 2: Rail alignment along the Freeway to a point south of Romeo Rd, then cutting in to serve a small Alkimos Town Centre in the parabolic dune, with major town centres at Brighton and Eglinton, and a smaller town centre at Jindalee-by-the-Sea. (Figure 6)

• Option 3: Rail alignment fully within urban corridor. The rail is pulled away from Freeway south of Lukin Drive, to create walkable catchment on both sides of a station at Butler, then runs slightly east of the centre of the corridor. Major town centres at Brighton (formerly known as Jindalee) and at Alkimos (relocated north of the parabolic dune), and minor centres at Butler and Eglinton. (Figure 7)

• Option 4: Rail alignment along edge of Freeway to north of Butler Station, then runs through the urbanism slightly east of the centre of the corridor. Major town centres at Brighton and at Alkimos (relocated north of the parabolic dune), and minor centres at Butler and Eglinton. This was the preferred option. (Figure 8)


Two options (the preferred Option 4 and the preferred freeway option, Option 2) were quantifi ed and evaluated by the charrette team. Comparative analyses included traffi c, road infrastructure, employment generation, retail amount and distribution, rail cost and patronage, residential density implications, staging implications and overall cost-benefi t ratio assessment. These analyses are detailed elsewhere in this report. The options and their respective advantages and disadvantages are described in more detail below.

8.3.1 Option 1: Rail along Freeway with Butler and Alkimos as the Main Town Centres (refer Figure 5)

Rail: In Option 1, the rail line is taken out of the centre of Freeway at Lukin Drive and pulled westward towards the Butler Town Centre (on Connolly Ave) to provide some urban catchment on the east side of the station (refer No.1 on Figure 5). The rail was then swung back onto the western side of the Freeway up to Romeo Rd. While this improved potential catchment to the Butler Station, it was recognised that the land created between the rail and the freeway was seen as of low value and low amenity, as well as being diffi cult to access.

Stations are shown at Butler (No: 1), Alkimos (No: 2) and Eglinton (No: 3). While this station spacing is relatively infrequent, it was diffi cult to create strong walking catchments anywhere between these points, and thus the rail was anticipated to be a higher speed route more dependent on ‘park and ride’ bus custom.

Centres: Alkimos would be the strongest centre. It has a strong surrounding catchment together with a station, and little competition from retail centres to the south (refer No. 2 on Figure 5).

The Butler Centre was shown as quite large, although it would be effectively isolated from through traffi c because of the long delay in construction of the Freeway, and thus the dominance of Marmion Ave for through traffi c. The centre would need to be focussed onto Connolly Drive to capture the moderate traffi c exposure that this street will generate. In addition, the rail would probably need to be built early to help this town centre. The absence of a centre at Brighton/Jindalee (refer No. 5 on Figure 5) creates an opportunity for the smaller Jindalee-by-the-Sea centre on Lot 10 to be relatively strong (refer No. 6 on Figure 5).

Roads: Marmion Ave is shown relocated eastward around Alkimos Town Centre, to ensure that its traffi c energy ‘feeds’ that centre. Connolly Drive is re-located slightly eastward to activate the walkable neighbourhood centres north of Butler Town Centre. It is terminated at Romeo Rd, as the combination of moderate residential densities and the narrow width of the urban corridor does not appear to warrant two major arterials plus a future Freeway and the existing Wanneroo Rd.

Industrial land: This is shown around the Romeo Rd Freeway exit. Although the major catalyst of the Freeway will not be built for some time, limited early development may occur because Romeo Rd connects through to Wanneroo Rd.Conclusion: This Option was not preferred for the area south of Romeo Rd because of the poor station catchment generated, the diffi culties associated with the Butler Town Centre’s viability, and the lack of a town centre on Marmion Avenue (where the traffi c energy will be). It was also recognised that this option provided little reason for the rail to be built early, thus providing little incentive for higher densities or stronger mixed use centres.

In essence, Option 1 was recognised as producing a relatively poor outcome for optimising use of the rail, as well as providing a weak centre at Butler. Meanwhile the main traffi c spine of Marmion Avenue would have come under pressure for strip development.


Figure 5 Option 1: Rail along Freeway with Butler and Alkimosas the Main Town Centres

water

parks and reserves

bushland

commercial/retail

400m radius neighbourhoodprecinct

low-density residential

medium-density residential

light industry

community facilitiesschools

rail line

rail station

legend

4

EglintonResort

NeerabupNational

Park

Brighton/Jindalee

3

2

7

56

1


water

parks and reserves

bushland

commercial/retail

400m radius neighbourhoodprecinct



light industry

community facilitiesschools

rail line

rail station

legend

1

2

5

63

4

AlkimosBeach

EglintonResort

Waste watertreatment plant

Ground watertreatment plant

Figure 6 Option 2: Rail along Freeway with Brighton and Eglinton as the Main Town Centres


8.3.2 Option 2: Rail along Freeway with Brighton and Eglinton as the Main Town Centres (refer Figure 6)

Rail: In Option 2, the rail line is again taken out of the centre of the Freeway at Lukin Rd. It is moved to the west side of the Freeway to provide better station access to the walkable catchment at Butler, than would result from a station in the centre of the Freeway. However, it is not drawn into the site (refer No. 1 on Figure 6), as little benefi t was seen to result from this in Option 1.

Stations are shown at Butler (No: 2), Alkimos (No: 3) and Eglinton (No: 4), with a possible Park-and-Ride (at Jindalee East) (refer No. 5 on Figure 6). There is no incentive to build the rail early.

Centres: Jindalee (Brighton) would be the strongest town centre. It has a strong surrounding residential catchment and is activated by Marmion Avenue traffi c. However, it is quite remote from its nearest station, and as such it is diffi cult to see any signifi cant increase in density occurring in the corridor as a result of that station.

The other main centre would be at Eglinton, as the relatively low urban density typical of the northern corridor would not support a big centre as close as Alkimos.

Both the Alkimos and Butler Centres would be quite small. The Jindalee Beach centre on Lot 10 would need to have a tourist and recreation emphasis.

Roads: As in Option 1, Marmion Ave is shown relocated eastward around Alkimos Town Centre, to again ensure that its traffi c energy feeds that centre.

Connolly Drive is again re-located slightly eastward to activate the walkable neighbourhood centres north of Butler. It is again terminated at Romeo Rd, as the combination of moderate residential densities and the narrow width of the corridor do not appear to warrant two major arterials plus a future Freeway and the existing Wanneroo Rd.

Industrial land: As in Option 1, this is shown around the Romeo Rd Freeway exit. Although the major catalyst of the Freeway will not be built for some time, limited early development may occur because Romeo Rd connects through to Wanneroo Rd.

Conclusion: This Option was not preferred for the area south of Romeo Rd, again because of the relatively poor station catchments generated. Unlike those stations on the Freeway up to Burns Beach Rd, the two stations do not have a double-sided urban corridor from which to attract bi-modal access customers to supplement their poor walk-on custom.

The centre at Brighton on Marmion Avenue would be well-supported by traffi c, but its remoteness from rail would have limited its appeal for higher densities or stronger mixed use centres. However, the consequent need to downgrade the scale of the proposed regional centre at Alkimos was seen as problematic because of existing landowner expectations.

Option 2 was recognised as producing a relatively poor outcome for optimising use of the rail. However, the option had benefi ts in that the rail could be constructed in a time frame relatively independent of the urban development, and that it did not signifi cantly bisect the corridor south of Romeo Rd. This option was used for comparative modelling purposes, in order to determine whether the preferred urban option (Option 4) could demonstrate commensurate benefi ts in fi nancial terms, both for the development industry and for government infrastructure investment.


Overall the ‘Rail along Freeway’ options had weak station catchments as they were only half urban (the eastern half being National Park), so relatively low ridership would result and fewer stations can be justifi ed. The strength of these half-centres was further constrained by the diffi culties of creating dense urban nodes hard up against a future freeway. Furthermore, the absence of the Freeway connections in the short to medium term puts stations in areas with no exposure to through traffi c.

The southern town centres are poorly served, or not served at all by stations, so there is less likelihood of destination rail custom and less appeal for post-industrial businesses to establish in the town centres.

8.3.3 Option 3: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment within Urban Corridor

Option 3 brings the rail line out of the centre of the Freeway well south of Lukin Drive, and into the site. This enables the Butler station to be even further west than in Option 1, with good walkable catchment on both sides (refer No. 3 on Figure 7). After Butler, the line heads north-west to provide a Brighton station on Jindalee Boulevard (around 800 metres east of Marmion Avenue). The rail continues northward around 500 metres east of, and roughly parallel to, Marmion Ave (No: 2 Figure 7).

Major town centres are at Brighton (No: 3) and at Alkimos (No: 4), with minor centres at Butler (No: 5) and Eglinton (No: 6).

The Brighton Town Centre (labelled Jindalee on the Plan – refer No. 3 on Figure 7) is the major centre south of Romeo Rd. Provided the rail is built relatively early, the synergy between the rail and the town centre should be able to catalyse more intensive urban development in the whole area south of Romeo Rd. Detail options of the area from Lukin Drive to north of the Brighton Town Centre are also shown on Figure 7.

The Alkimos Town Centre (refer No. 4 on Figure 7) is re-located north about a kilometre (out of the parabolic dune but still on Landcorp land and within the designated City Centre zone in the MRS). This relocation will enable it to remain the regional centre for this part of the corridor, with the bulk of its catchment coming from the Eglinton area.

Butler and Eglinton are smaller centres, with each anticipated to be a single supermarket-based local mixed use town centre. Jindalee Beach would have a tourist and recreation focus.

Five rail stations are proposed, at an average of 2km spacing. This places the stations such that each has a good 1km-radius walkable catchment of urban development that can be relatively dense and diverse.

Conclusion: Option 3 is a sound option in terms of a sustainable urban structure outcome. It provides a rail corridor that can be supported well by the bulk of the urban development in the corridor, and can be tied in well with town centres that respond well to the Marmion Avenue movement corridor. However, after testing it in detail on the Joint Venture’s land, it was found to have unacceptable impacts on the Joint Venture’s short to medium term land supply in return for the benefi ts gained in walkable catchment to one station.


4

7 3

2

6

1

5

NeerabupNational

Park

Jindalee by-the-Sea

Lukin Drive

Mar

mio

n Av

enue

Free

way

Butler NeighbourhoodCentre



commercial/retail

community facilities

bulky goodscommercial

schools

400m radius neighbourhoodcentre

light industry

water

parks and reserves

bushland

rail line

station

legend

Figure 7 Option 3: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment within Urban Corridor

r



Figure 8 Option 4: Preferred Rail Option



commercial/retail



schools


light industry

water

parks and reserves

bushland

rail line

station

legend

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

1112

13

14

14

14

Alkimos Town Centre

Brighton TownCentre

Marm

ion Avenue

1

Lukin Drive

Romeo Road

2

8.3.4 Option 4: Butler-Brighton New Rail Alignment Mostly within Urban Corridor

Option 4 was the preferred option in terms of a sustainable urban structure outcome. It is similar to Option 3 in that it provides a rail corridor that can be supported well by the bulk of the urban development in the corridor, and it can be tied in well with a town centre structure that responds to the strong Marmion Avenue movement corridor. Moreover, by continuing the rail up the Freeway reserve around the Butler Station, it was able to provide adequate fl exibility for the Joint Venture land release program and maximised the amount of land on the ‘right side of the tracks’.

This option brings the rail line onto the west side of the Freeway at Lukin Drive (refer to No: 1 Figure 8), and positions Butler station in a similar place to Option 2. This option maximises use of the Freeway corridor for the rail line to a point around 800m north of Lukin Drive. It also retains the choice of the Freeway and Corridor route options to that point. After that it swings towards the coast to provide a station on Jindalee Boulevard around 800 metres east of Marmion Avenue (refer to No: 2 Figure 8).

The rail then continues northward around 500 metres east of, and roughly parallel to, Marmion Avenue, serving Alkimos and Eglinton centres with good station locations. At a point north of Eglinton, it swings west to abut Marmion Ave, to share the same corridor through the bushland reserve south of St Andrews/Yanchep (refer to No: 6 Figure 8).

Five rail stations are proposed, at an optimum average of two kilometre spacing. This so places the stations that each has a workable catchment of a good kilometre of urban development that can be relatively dense and diverse. Each station abuts a strong east-west street to ensure good access, good exposure and effi cient bus interchanges. Four are associated with town centres, while the fi fth, at Romeo Rd, will be based on residential custom and park-and-ride. (Refer to No: 3 Figure 8). Considerable residential density would need to occur to justify this station. Butler Station would also have substantial park-and-ride capacity in recognition of its limited walkable catchment, and the extensive conventional suburban development in nearby Quinns Rocks and Merriwa (Refer to No: 1 Figure 8).

The Brighton Town Centre is the major centre south of Romeo Rd (Refer to No: 7 Figure 8). Provided the rail is built relatively early, the synergy between the rail and the town centre should be able to catalyse more intensive urban development in the whole area south of Romeo Rd. In retail terms, the Brighton centre is anticipated to support two supermarkets and a discount department store, along with a large range of specialty shops, other businesses and civic uses.

The Alkimos Town Centre is relocated north about a kilometre (outside the wishbone-shaped parabolic dune, but still on Landcorp land and within the designated District Centre zone in the MRS) (Refer to No: 8 Figure 8). This relocation will enable it to remain the regional centre for this part of the corridor, with the bulk of its catchment coming from the Eglinton area. It would have a similar retail anchor structure to Brighton but would have more major civic, business, health and education facilities within it.

It was also considered that this more northerly Alkimos site may have some additional benefi ts for a major town centre. The site will be on a direct route from the Freeway and Wanneroo Rd to the ‘best beach’ at Alkimos Beach (Refer to No: 9 Figure 8). The centre is also on the same side of the dune to the proposed town park next to a water treatment plant. The site will also be close to the buffer area of the Sewerage Treatment Plant, and this is advantageous for a wide range of non-residential business uses that will be able to afford centrally-located buffer land not affected by high coastal area residential land prices (Refer to No: 10 Figure 8).


The question arose as to the implications of retaining the Alkimos Town Centre core within its presently planned location within the parabolic dunes. While this would still be a workable alternative, it would likely result in the following problems:

• it would be quite close to the Brighton Town Centre and would create considerable overlap in their primary retail catchments, possibly to the detriment of both, and this could limit the potential of Alkimos to be the predominant centre, as Brighton (further south) would be established fi rst;• it would mean that the Alkimos Station (Refer to No: 4 Figure 8), would move southward, thus removing one of the proposed fi ve stations (Romeo Rd station) and therefore producing a sub-optimal station frequency in the corridor;• it would be more isolated from the Sewerage Treatment Plant buffer, and thus be less able to take advantage of the Sewerage Treatment Plant buffer land for businesses that may be attracted by proximity to the town centre.

Butler and Eglinton are smaller centres, with each anticipated to be a single supermarket-based local mixed use town centre. Jindalee Beach centre would have a tourist and recreation focus.

The location of schools was also carefully considered. To encourage public transport use, several public and two private secondary schools were located about 800m from stations, and in most cases these were also within about 800m of the Marmion Avenue bus route. Primary schools were distributed, wherever possible, outside the 1km radius of stations as such schools generally are not accessed by public transport.

The regional structure also incorporated all large already-committed areas of regionally signifi cant bushland or public reserve. These included a substantial coastal reserve, and some areas identifi ed under Bush Forever. It also included a proposed Regional Open Space area between Alkimos Beach (No: 9) and Eglinton Resort (No: 12). However, this site was defi ned in response to an approved plan for the Eglinton Resort, which it is understood may not proceed in the original form. If so, then this area should be reviewed.

This regional structure shows an indicative modifi ed form for the Eglinton Resort incorporating a golf course and waterfront resort precinct that is, fi rstly, denser; and, secondly, does not overly constrain the Eglinton Station catchment and the precinct’s walkability.

Consideration has also been given to the number and possible location of golf courses in the corridor. It is likely that one private course will occur in the Eglinton area as part of the proposed coastal resort. In addition, it was felt that one public course could be required. This could possibly be located as shown on the plan, within part of the Waste Water Treatment Plant buffer, on some heavily undulating land that may suit development of a links course (Refer to No: 10 Figure 8). Alternatively, that land could be used for a variety of other non-residential uses, with a public golf course located instead on land east of Alkimos/Eglinton, in the vicinity of Wanneroo Rd.

Industrial land: As in earlier options, land in the vicinity of the proposed Freeway and particularly at future interchange locations is identifi ed for large fl oor-plate buildings and/or low worker density uses (Refer to No: 14 Figure 8). The key areas are largely outside the station catchments, and occupy the land of lowest residential value furthest from the beach. At this stage it is diffi cult to estimate how much land of this type will be required given the very large industrial estate at Flynn Drive to the south-east of Wanneroo Rd.

Within the primary study area, the main industrial precinct is shown around the Romeo Rd Freeway exit. Although the major catalyst of the Freeway will not be built for some time, limited early development may occur because Romeo Rd connects through to Wanneroo Rd.


The location of the Brighton Station (and the related question of the rail alignment to serve it) was the subject of much consideration (Refer to No: 2 Figure 8).

The earlier preferred Jindalee Option C positioned the station quite a distance further west towards Marmion Ave, to provide an anchor right at the end of the commercial heart of the Town Centre. However, while this provided excellent station access to the commercial uses, it now had several diffi culties. These included:

• the already-approved Joint Venture lower density residential development would have occupied a signifi cant proportion of the southern half of the station catchment;

• the rail alignment curvatures would have been extreme (assuming the Butler station was located on the western edge of the freeway reserve);

• the rail line would have put a lot of the Joint Venture land on the ‘wrong side of the tracks’.

In addition, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s experience with Perth’s rail passenger loading patterns indicated that better custom would come from intensifying residential activity within the core 400m walkable catchment of the station than from commercial development. Conversely, the 400+ metre walk to the town centre core was not considered to be a signifi cant deterrent to ‘destination’ customers such as workers or shoppers. This sub-regional structure option was refi ned through production of a more detailed plan at 1:5,000 scale for the whole area south of Romeo Rd, including all of the Butler-Brighton Joint Venture land. This plan is described in detail in Chapter 9.

8.4 Features of the Preferred Sub-Regional Plan

Option 4 was the preferred option after evaluation of alternatives during the charrette, and provided the basis for more detailed design and evaluation work for the Joint Venture land. The features of this option are shown on Figure 9 and annotated with the numbers referred to below.

The rail route (refer No. 2) leaves the freeway just north of Lukin Drive, where Butler park-n-ride station will be located (refer No. 3A). It will swing north-westwards to a station at Brighton/Jindalee, then northwards and parallel with Marmion Avenue to a possible station at Romeo Road with park-n-ride facilities (refer No. 3B). The rail route would continue northwards central within the Corridor, and some 200-300 metres east of Marmion Avenue. Alkimos and Eglinton would constitute the next two stations.

In terms of town centre scale, Alkimos (No. 1A) would be the principal centre, with Brighton/Jindalee (No. 1B) the secondary centre, and Eglinton (No. 1C) third in scale.

Three beach nodes would be created at Jindalee Beach (No. 7A), Alkimos Beach (No. 7B) and Eglinton Resort refer (No. 7C). Each would be connected by a direct road access to the town centres of Brighton/Jindalee, Alkimos and Eglinton respectively =An extension of the freeway this far north has not been an integral part of this plan. It is likely that the freeway will not arrive for some 20 years in this locality. In the interim, it can function as a rural road instead.

In terms of the southern one-third of the plan (the next development phase), this plan has the following features :

• the Butler Joint Venture will be able to continue its development front uninterrupted. • higher residential densities to be provided within one kilometre of Butler Station, which will be constructed to cater for park-n-ride and walk-on patrons.


• The Butler Station will be in close proximity to two high schools, with the future private school in particular likely to attract a signifi cant number of train patrons. (The proposed public open space which would split the two school sites can be moved further north to a location outside the station’s sphere of infl uence.)

• Connolly Drive can be reduced to a two-lane neighbourhood collector. The narrowness of the Corridor, and the proximity of other north-south routes, will allow this down-grading, and return more developable land to the landowners.

• Brighton/Jindalee Station will also have two high schools in close proximity, and be served by a Mainstreet with some 20,000 square metres of retail fl oor space and some ‘main road’-type businesses along Marmion Avenue.

• Marmion Avenue will be straightened to increase the quantity of land located to the west, thereby making this land more attractive to develop and sell (No. 5).

• Romeo Road (east) would become an industrial area where signifi cant car-based commercial/light and service industrial development (such as car yards) could take place.

Alkimos town centre has been shifted north of the main dune, and could become a 20,000 to 50,000 square metres retail centre. However, Alkimos may not become the large centre previously envisaged, especially if Brighton/Jindalee is successful and grows to its potential. The form of Alkimos should ideally be Mainstreet orientated, with potential for an ‘urban university’, private hospital and high schools close to the station (No. 4).

Romeo Road Station is in an attractive locality, which may increase the chances of its surround becoming a successful mixed business centre.

Eglinton will be closely connected to the beach resort and its golf club. The alignment of Marmion Avenue will be altered to accommodate this connection, with the result that Eglinton town centre can be sustained by the railway and Marmion Avenue, and an extension to the freeway becomes less crucial to the centre’s viability and sustainability. North of Eglinton, the railway and Marmion Avenue alignments will come together to minimise the severance effect and physical impact as they pass through the Parks and Recreation reservation. The land on the eastern edge of the Corridor in the vicinity of Eglinton will be set aside for various industrial uses.

The proposed sewerage treatment site will be surrounded by a golf course as a buffer area (No.8). Other suitable land uses that could occur in close proximity to the site could be businesses on Marmion Avenue, and research and development-type operations. A recreational facility could be developed at the ocean outfall site, which would by necessity be of a temporary nature, due to the need to redevelop the outfall facilities every 25 years.

It is vital to the success of the preferred plan that the railway be constructed to the Brighton/Jindalee town centre as quickly as possible. This is likely to be about 2006 or 2007, when Brighton/Jindalee is likely to be in a position to be built. Options for achieving and paying for this are discussed later in this report.

It is also important that the potential severance effect of the railway be minimised by suitable engineering measures, such as the provision of frequent crossings, ‘lids’ with green space on top, and a minimal width of rail reserve. Where the rail line is to be sunk fully or partially, the cut should ideally have vertical sides to minimise the land required.

Appropriately designed home-based businesses have the potential to provide suitable main road land uses, without unduly compromising the amenity of the residents.



1C

4

1A7C

7B

8

5

7A

3B

6

1B

2

3A3A

21B

6

3B1A

7A

5

8

7B

7C

41C



commercial/retail



schools


light industry

water

parks and reserves

bushland

rail line

station

legend

Figure 9 Preferred Sub-regional Structure


Figure 10 Detailed Urban Structure Plan



commercial/retail



schools


light industry

water

parks and reserves

coastal reserve

rail line

station

legend

Romeo Road Station

Butler Town Centre

Brighton Town Centre

Romeo Road

Brighton Station

Freeway

Butler StationM

armion Avenue

Connolly Drive

Butler Neighbourhood Centre

Jindalee-by-the-Sea

9 DETAILED URBAN STRUCTURE PLAN

9.1 Background

The preferred sub-regional structure plan, described as Option 4 in Chapter 8, was detailed during the charrette to produce a Detailed Urban Structure Plan at 1:5,000 for the Joint Venture landholdings and those landholdings immediately adjacent. It covered the main study area south of Romeo Rd. The purpose of this plan was to preliminarily test the structure at the detailed level, and provide an adequately detailed plan for the various quantitative analyses and modelling tasks undertaken by other team members.

This Detailed Plan (Figure 10) shows the town and neighbourhood structure, with each centre highlighted by a 400-metre walkable catchment radius. The Plan also shows an indicative street network, with major streets shown with trees. The colours give broad indications of the land use at the ground level, in accord with the key. Other uses may occupy upper levels, particularly within the town centres.

The Charrette covered fi ve days and a number of elements of the Detailed Plan were not able to be fully resolved. Further refi nement of the plan was identifi ed as required through subsequent structure planning and review sessions.

9.2 Key Features of the Plan and the Design Rationale

The key features of the Plan are described below and shown on Figure 11. The design rationale behind this plan is similar to that behind the 1996 Jindalee Detailed Plan that informed so much of the Liveable Neighbourhood Community Design Code.

The resolution of the Detailed Plan resulted from an interplay between the major and secondary street network, and the location of stations, town and neighbourhood centres, and large attractors such as schools, to ensure the urban structure optimises the ‘movement economy’. By this is meant the way in which each feature is supported by having an appropriate degree of access and exposure to movement by the most appropriate modes of car, public transport and walking.

A walkable neighbourhood and street structure is a fundamental principle of the Plan. The local street network provides effi cient and direct access to key destinations, as well as providing a good walking environment within neighbourhoods. The 400-metre radii around neighbourhood centres not only defi ne the core walkable catchment for such local destinations, but also broadly enclose an area approximating the amount of urban catchment needed to support a corner store (considered the minimum facility needed in each neighbourhood centre).

A cluster of around eight or nine neighbourhoods surround and support the main Brighton Town Centre (refer No. 1 on Figure 11). A smaller cluster of four or fi ve neighbourhoods support the smaller Butler Town Centre (refer No. 2 on Figure 11) on Lukin Drive. (Some of these are not shown on the Plan as they lie within the existing conventional development). More details of these two Town Centres are provided in Section 9.3.


The Jindalee Beach Town Centre is a special type of centre. (refer No. 3 on Figure 11) Its commercial development would be focussed on beachside tourism and recreation, rather than depending mainly on local retail. That would be provided more in the Brighton Town Centre.

Most of the other neighbourhood centres proposed will be quite small. To assist with the viability of their corner stores, they are all located at the junction of two busy or moderately busy streets; Their primary catchments are on the ‘far’ side from the direction of movement (generally southward). In addition, the street network is structured to pull people past these little centres. Sometimes a school has been deliberately located ‘counter-fl ow’ to pull more custom back past the centres.

The largest of the neighbourhood centres will be the southern-most centre on Marmion Ave, at the junction with Kingsbridge Boulevard (refer No. 4 on Figure 11). This is the recently constructed entry to the fi rst stages of the Brighton estate. It is planned that a small mixed use centre will be established here, both to demonstrate the new type of ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ urbanism intended throughout the precinct, and to provide local services for the area until either the Butler or Brighton Centres are commenced.

The route of the rail line has been determined with respect to the topography, taking advantage of cuts into the dunes to depress it, and to minimise the width of the rail reserve by using vertical retaining walls, rather than sloping batters, wherever practical. This arrangement will also reduce the noise impact on adjoining properties. The rail’s division of the urbanism is also reduced by several bridges.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the rail line runs up the Freeway reserve as far as practical before curving in to the Brighton Station. This not only limits land take but also ensures that the Joint Venture will have substantial unconstrained land available for their next stages eastward from their current stages. These stages are quite distant from both stations and thus can enable the Joint Venture to gradually move towards increased density before undertaking denser stages closer to the stations.

The construction of the rail line can be staged. The fi rst stage would involve construction to Brighton, and the second stage to Alkimos. A temporary terminus could also occur at Butler, although this is not preferred, as the rail needs to reach Brighton well in advance of the urbanism around that station core in order to catalyse appropriate density.

The Butler Station is located north of Lukin Drive, to ensure it is as close as possible to the two high schools. The walk is still over 500 metres, so it needs to be quite direct to attract students to use the rail. This station is also provided with a substantial park-and-ride facility with direct access off Lukin Drive. (refer No. 5 on Figure 11)

The Brighton Station is immediately south of Jindalee Boulevard, with the line in ‘cut’ below the road, providing easy access directly via this street to the Town Centre. (refer No. 6 on Figure 11) The station being on the southern side will encourage walking custom from the southern quadrants. These have a stronger residential catchment than those on the north, which are shown as containing two High Schools. Both schools are within easy walking distance of the station. The Lutheran High School was located as shown because it was considered an appropriate use to be sited in amongst some extensive groves of tuart trees. (refer No. 11 on Figure 11) The State High School is placed partly on land owned by the Joint Venture and partly on Lot 3, as it serves both areas. (refer No. 10 on Figure 11) A state primary school is located to the west of these schools and abutting an area of local bushland in public open space. (refer No. 20 on Figure 11)


1,000m

7

18

14

102011

6161

3

13

17

4

2115

9

8

22

19

2

512

10



commercial/retail



schools


light industry

water

parks and reserves

coastal reserve

rail line

station

Legend Centres 1 Brighton Town Centre 2 Butler Town Centre 3 Jindalee Beach Town Centre 4 Marmion South Neighbourhood Centre

Stations 5 Butler Station 6 Brighton Station 7 Romeo Road Station

Key Schools 8 Catholic High School 9 Butler State High School 10 Lutheran High School 11 Brighton State High School

Key Road Transport Infrastructure 12 Freeway and full Lukin Drive interchange 13 Split diamond interchange with Freeway

14 Marmion Avenue integrator arterial 15 Downsized Connolly Drive 16 Jindalee Boulevard 17 Important direct streets to the coast

Other 18 Romeo Road industrial/ business area 19 Environmentally signifi cant bushland 20 Tuart woodland of land scape value 21 Relocated District Open space 22 Urban development on land currently identifi ed for District Open Space

Key

Figure 11 Detailed Urban Structure Plan (annotated)



13

16

1

4

21

9

20

11

17

3

10

Knightsbridge

Boulevard



commercial/retail



schools


light industry

water

parks and reserves

coastal reserve

rail line

station

legend

Figure 12 Brighton Town Centre Detail Plan

The Romeo Station is located on the northern side of Romeo Rd. (refer No. 7 on Figure 11) This is because not only is its stronger catchment likely to be on the north, but also because its construction is more likely to be timed with development on the Landcorp property than development of Lot 3 (refer to Figure 3). Indeed, a key challenge for the Romeo Station’s viability will be to ensure that suffi cient density occurs on Lot 3 in the core catchment south of the station, as this land may be developed well in advance of the rail. In relation to major road infrastructure, the Plan takes into account that the Freeway is unlikely to be built for at least fi fteen to twenty years, and that Marmion Avenue will be the main spine, with a connection via Romeo Rd through to Wanneroo Rd.

However, the Freeway connections have been considered both in terms of the need for freeway access and in terms of their impact on the longer-term movement economy. It was recognised that the south-side ramps at Jindalee Boulevard were the most important, as they connect traffi c directly into the major town centre at Brighton. (refer No. 13 on Figure 11) If Alkimos Town Centre moves north of the dune and is fed directly by an Alkimos Boulevard Freeway connection, then the need for direct south-side ramps at Romeo Rd is reduced. Thus a linked pair of ramps and service roads were provided at Romeo Rd and Jindalee Boulevard. A full diamond is shown at Lukin Drive to serve the Butler area. (refer No. 12 on Figure 11)

Marmion Avenue is the key street in the precinct. It is planned as an integrator arterial, with frontage along it, with vehicle access provided either by service roads or via side streets. The use of much of the Marmion frontage for a range of business uses is imperative, if jobs and local services are to be provided. Marmion Avenue is also a major bus route, and the design will be detailed to incorporate regular traffi c lights along it, co-ordinated with the major bus stops, to facilitate pedestrians crossing.

Marmion Avenue will be detailed as a tree-lined boulevard with a median, in a slightly reduced reserve width. Its alignment remains on the MRS alignment as far as the northern end of Lot 10. At that point it is swung northward through the Joint Venture land towards Alkimos. This re-alignment puts more land on the ‘beach side’ of Marmion Avenue both within the Joint Venture land and within Lot 3. It also ‘squares up’ the parcels, resulting in more effi cient development. (refer No. 14 on Figure 11)

Connolly Drive as a dual carriageway in a 60-metre reserve is terminated at Lukin Drive. North of that point, this arterial continues, but in a substantially reduced scale, and fronted so that it does not divide its adjoining urbanism. (refer No.15 on Figure 11) It is also re-routed slightly eastward, adding more valuable land to its west (beach) side, and enabling it effi ciently to cross the rail line.

Jindalee Boulevard is the main east-west route, connecting to a regional beach, and ultimately onto the Freeway. This street will be a narrow integrator arterial of mostly two lanes plus parking and a small median. As it runs through the heart of the area’s pedestrian precincts (station, town centre and Jindalee Beach) it will be a shady, tree-lined slow-speed environment. (refer No. 16 on Figure 11) There are also several neighbourhood connector-scale streets running directly to the coast from land east of Marmion Ave. These connections are important as they add both value and perceived lifestyle benefi ts to the more inland areas. (refer No. 17 on Figure 11)

Romeo Rd is regarded as an important future large-scale, low intensity industrial/car-based business precinct as it is well outside the station catchments. In addition, it has the potential to begin to develop well before the Freeway is built because of its existing connection to Wanneroo Rd.


Several areas of environmental or natural landscape signifi cance exist in the area. These include the prominent Eglinton Hill and trig point on Lot 10, two small areas of Melaleuca huegellii – Meleleuca acerosa north of Lukin Drive, and areas of banksia woodland that provide summer and autumn feeding areas for Carnaby’s Cockatoo. A wide coastal reserve is already in place, and this will be increased in the north-western corner of the plan area to ensure protection of Karli Spring, an important natural and Aboriginal heritage area located on the coast just north of Lot 9.

The two Melaleuca huegelii – Meleleuca acerosa areas are proposed for retention in public open space. An area of local bushland comprising representations of dryandra heathland and banksia woodland is proposed for retention immediately south of the primary school in the north-western most neighbourhood, and near the schools to support conservation education. (refer No. 20 on FIgure 11)

Areas of open space are also provided for active and passive recreation. However, a key challenge in this corridor will involve balancing the protection of areas of natural bushland against urban sustainability objectives, particularly of increasing the overall development yield to support rail.

As a result, active sportsfi elds have been combined with schools, and passive parks are predicated on quality spaces that are small but well-located, rather than quantity space that is under developed, in order to reduce the overall land allocated to public open space.

An area of land at Butler between the two high schools, a State Government High School (refer No. 9 on Figure 11) and a Catholic High School (refer No. 8 on Figure 11) had earlier been set aside as District Open Space. This area was reviewed, as this land is in the core catchment for the Butler centre and station. Unless this land is to be developed for an intensive recreation facility such as an indoor sports centre, it was felt that the land would be more appropriately used for urban purposes. (refer No. 22 on Figure 11) A more suitable area for outdoor sportsfi elds was identifi ed further north, on Kingsbridge Boulevard, linked to a proposed primary school and to a formal park and artifi cial lake system, built as stage 1 of the development to provide a sense of place and amenity for early residents. (refer to No: 1 Figure 11)

9.3 Town Centres

The Brighton Town Centre is planned as a traditional main street-based mixed use centre. Jindalee Boulevard is the core retail street, two lanes with parking. It would be lined by specialty shops, with the three anchor stores tucked in behind but accessed from the main street. Four super-blocks, each around 200m square, contain the anchors. Most of the car parking will be in sleeved areas behind the shops - refer Figure 12: Brighton Town Centre Detail Plan.

The area between the retail core and the Brighton Station will be developed for quite dense residential, including multi-storey apartments. A major dune in this area provides elevated land with good views. A town park, together with leisure businesses such as a pub and some restaurants as part of multi-storey mixed use developments, will activate Jindalee Boulevard east to the Station.

Land fronting Marmion Avenue at the Brighton Town Centre is seen as very valuable for commercial uses. It will be used for a variety of relatively intensive non-retail uses, including possibly a hotel, as well as possibly for some car-based retail sites. Mixed use buildings with residential above would also be encouraged.The street network serving the town centre is designed to facilitate access by car and by foot from all surrounding areas.


The rail line (refer Figure 13: Rail line treatments) is fully in ‘cut’ at the station. This ensures that noise is minimised, and that there is no disruption to Jindalee Boulevard. Access down to the platform is provided from the street. It is possible that a small park or plaza could be built over the line at this point, to further reduce the perceived division of the rail, as well as providing an attractive outlook for denser development around the station. The rail line through the balance of the urban area is also proposed to be in cut to minimize noise and visual impacts.The Butler Town Centre is quite a lot smaller than the Brighton Centre. It is anticipated to have suffi cient custom to support a medium-sized supermarket, together with a range of specialty retail and service businesses, provided that a substantial amount of medium density residential is delivered (and vice versa).

The retail core will likely be at the junction of Connolly Drive and Lukin Drive, as there the centre can be fed by Connolly Drive traffi c (Figure 11, No:2). Moving the centre further east would link it better with the station, but it would be far too isolated from through traffi c (as the Freeway will not be constructed within the time frame of the development).

A high residential yield within the 1km radius of the Butler Station is critical to ‘earning’ the early construction of the rail (and vice versa). The amount of land for residential in the Butler Town Centre/Butler Station precinct is already limited by the Freeway reserve, the schools, and the large limestone hill outcrop covered with signifi cant vegetation. Creating small parks with high amenity will be one way of supporting intensifi cation, as will high-quality shaded streets, particularly on those key routes to the station and centre.

Lukin Drive may ultimately support mixed uses. However, this is problematic in the short to medium term because the Freeway will not be there. Hence, adaptable buildings and possibly some short-term uses may occur along this street. It is also anticipated that further analysis may enable the road reserve to be narrowed from the currently-designated 60m.

The more detailed 1:5,000 plan allows lot yields to be calculated, and walkability and other movements to be tested.



Rail Section A through Brighton Town Centre station

Rail Section B through urban areas

Figure 13 Passenger Rail Line Treatments

10 MAJOR PLAN ELEMENTS

10.1 Household Yields

The household surveys undertaken by Macroplan and outlined in Section 4.0 established that there was a context for smaller lots at Butler-Brighton based on likely market demand and a more diverse household with a reduced proportion of family households. To explore the potential for density increase to provide greater product mix and higher lot yields (from the landowners’ perspective) and the more effi cient use of urban land and increased numbers of residents within the catchment of the rail and town centre (from the State and local governments perspective), two household scenarios were established.

The base case scenario (‘business as usual’) assumed that Liveable Neighbourhoods would be implemented at the project level only that is, yields similar to those proposed by the DPI’s Metropolitan Development Strategy would result. For the purposes of the analysis, household numbers were assumed to equate with lot numbers. The ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’ scenario assumed that Liveable Neighbourhoods at the district level could be achieved, and that the creation of a mixed use and transit supportive town centre, and other amenity centres would create a context for higher densities and greater housing diversity.

At the sub-regional scale, which includes the land from the Joint Venture and the Jindalee lots north to Alkimos, the base case scenario indicated some 16,800 households could be accommodated. Adopting the higher yields of the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’ scenario indicated a potential 22,100 households in the sub-regional area.

For the purposes of examining the more specifi c Joint Venture area and particularly the likely catchment of the Brighton town centre (indicatively as shown on the Detailed Urban Structure Plan at Figure 11), the baseline district household yields were calculated to be some 13,000 which increased to 17,000 under the ‘Transit’ scenario. A summary of the household yield scenarios is shown on Figure 14.

10.2 Employment and Economic Development

The identifi cation of employment and land and space requirements is based on the proposed household yields of the ‘Transit Scenario’ discussed above: that is, 22,100 households in the sub-region and 17,000 households in the District Centre catchment.

10.2.1 Land and Space Budgets for the Brighton Study Area

Previous investigations of employment prospects for the Perth metropolitan area (Kemp, 1997) established a realistic demand for different types of space in Perth metropolitan growth corridors based on normal ‘population driven’ demand and capturing other ‘footloose employment’. This requires the creation of suitable business settings attractive to small business and small-scale tertiary offi ce activities. The charrette objective was to realise that employment strategy in this portion of the outer North-West Corridor.

Beyond this there is the prospect of successfully incubating local home-based businesses in residential suburbs of the Corridor. Some 31% of these home-based businesses can be expected to be providing business services. A similar percentage will be engaged in retail or distribution activities, a further 23% in personal services and 15% in small scale, low impact manufacturing and ‘craft’ industries.



Some of these home-based businesses can be expected to ‘grow out’ to occupy suitable, affordable, commercial premises. Of these graduating home-based businesses, it is estimated that 42% will require offi ce space, 26% will require shopfront/retail space, for retail, personal and offi ce activities, and 32% will require fl exible storage/light industrial space.

The following assumptions were used in calculating space budgets :• Offi ce space is 44% of total demand for suburban space;• 46% of suburban offi ce space is located outside the Strategic Regional Centre;• 54% of suburban offi ce space is concentrated at the Joondalup Strategic Regional

Centre;• Industrial space accounts for 10% of total suburban space;• Warehousing/Storage space accounts for 6% of total suburban space;• Home-Based Businesses increase to 15% of dwellings; and• 17% of home-based businesses eventually grow to occupy commercial premises.

The combined demand for net lettable fl oor area (nfa), in the sub-regional area, when the suburbs mature, after residential ‘build-out’, is projected to be:

• Offi ce Space (affordable small business premises) - 29,600m² nfa (net fl oor area)• Industrial/Storage Space (fl exible, small premises) - 24,400m² nfa• Retail Frontage (for graduating home-based businesses) - 7,900m² nfa

The required total site areas, based on the City of Wanneroo’s existing landscaping, parking and vehicle manoeuvring requirements and appropriate, affordable built form, are estimated to be:

• Offi ce Space (affordable small business offi ce premises): 68,100m² or 6.8ha• Industrial/Storage/Warehouse/Distribution Space 63,500m² or 6.3ha.

The provision of suitably sized and located sites should be ensured at the detailed planning stage. Appropriate locations for this range of land uses have been identifi ed in the Preferred Sub-regional Plan and the Detailed Urban Structure Plans and described in Chapters 8 and 9.

10.2.2 Employment Budgets for the Brighton Study Area

The resident workforce at ‘build out’ is projected to be 20,700 for the ‘Transit’ scenario based on an average of 2.6 persons per household, with the present percentage of residents in the workforce. Ideally suffi cient jobs for the resident workforce should be located within 8 kilometres of where people live to provide 100% employment self suffi ciency. This would require the provision of 20,700 jobs in the sub-regional area, indicatively Butler, Brighton, Jindalee and Alkimos.

An employment self-suffi ciency in excess of 60% should be targeted which requires the provision of over 12,400 jobs, and it is considered that this could be realistically expected. The Sub-regional Structure Plan developed at the charrette is targeted at achieving some 17,000 jobs resulting in job self-suffi ciency of over 80%.

Not all these jobs may suit the skills of the resident workforce. Some new residents will continue to work outside the area, and there will still be ‘cross-commuting’ with some local jobs taken by people resident outside the study area.

It is anticipated that the following numbers of jobs could be provided in the sub-regional area, subject to suitable, well-located, affordable premises being developed:

AREABUSINESS AS USUAL

SCENARIOLIVEABLE

NEIGHBOURHOODS PLUSTRANSIT SCENARIO

Butler Brighton Central(Lots 8 & 9)

2,450 3,230

Butler Brighton East(Lots 32 & 33)

2,170 2,860

Jindalee North (Lot 9) 1,010 1,330

Jindalee Central (Lot 10) 1,140 1,500Jindalee South (Lot 12) 700 920Quinns North 550 730Merriwa 450 590Ridgewood (Lot 11) 1,500 1,980Alkimos (Lots 102 & 3) 2,990 3,850TOTAL 12,960 17,000

Alkimos

Figure 14 Household Yield Scenarios


• Offi ce Employment 960 • Industrial Employment 115• Storage/Warehouse/Distribution Employment 105 • Home Based Business Employment 4,380• Graduated Home Based Business Employment 1,690• Retail Employment (including personal services) 1,600

Total Private Sector Local Employment (43% job self-suffi ciency) 8,850

Population Driven Public Sector Employment (locally located) 2,070

Total Local Employment (53% job self-suffi ciency) 10,920

Appropriate accommodation for small business in affordable and credible small business space, will provide 43% local job self-suffi ciency from private sector employment. In addition, the public sector employment that follows and supports new populations such as teachers, local police, health workers and emergency services is projected to provide an additional 2,070 jobs resulting in 53% local job self-suffi ciency.

Other sources of employment that could be attracted to this portion of the North-West Corridor without detracting from the Joondalup Strategic Regional Centre include a car industry complex. This would cluster new and used car sales yards, 4-wheel driving experience centres, car hire, vehicle detailing, accessory fi tting and clusters of vehicle repair and servicing trades.

This could be extended to other vehicle sales, including hire services and trades applied to commercial vehicles, coaches, caravans, campervans, boats, and boating and camping equipment. A potential highway access location for such a complex was identifi ed in the sub- regional Structure Plan on Romeo Road.

Additional locally located motor vehicle services, including fuel and service stations, vehicle accessories, tyre and wheel fi tting and motor management services would also be anticipated. The employment prospects from providing for a range of locally and sub-regionally based motor vehicle sales and service is conservatively estimated at 400 jobs by 2016.

Opportunities were also identifi ed in the sub-regional area for the following additional major sources of employment focussed primarily on the Alkimos Strategic Regional Centre and coastal areas adjacent:

• Local Government Administration (or ‘satellite’, regional administration centre)• A Private Hospital (or health campus)• A Conference Centre (with a health retreat/health lodge)• A Corporate (private) University (possibly specialising in short ‘life events’ and ‘life time

interest’ courses)• Private Schools• A TAFE or Public University Campus (possibly incorporating a Co-operative Research

Centre for Water Quality Management based around the proposed Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant)

• Agricultural Business Services (to service the local and regional agricultural industry based around Carabooda to the east)

• A Regional Coastal Visitor Centre (incorporating serviced apartments, a hotel, tavern, regional recreational facilities and visitor attractions, and based around the Alkimos or Jindalee proposed coastal nodes).


Suitable general locations were established for such employment generators in the sub-regional Structure Plan. However, only the private school sites were specifi cally located in the Detailed Structure Plan area. The ‘direct’ employment created by these opportunities is estimated as 2,300 jobs. The ‘induced’ fl ow-on to other local employment is estimated as 1,800 jobs. This provides the potential for an additional 4,100 sub-regional jobs.

A signifi cant area of land abutting Flynn Drive to the east of Wanneroo road and Clarkson is designated for industrial development in the Metropolitan Structure Plan. The developable area is estimated as 540ha which would be suffi cient to provide approximately 1.2 million square metres of industrial and storage space. This is equivalent to the present take-up of space in all industrial areas throughout the whole Perth metropolitan area over four years. It is equivalent to the total fl oor space in both Kewdale (612,500m²) and Canning Vale (650,500m²) combined (1,263,000m ² in total).

Such a large amount of land is unlikely to be ‘built out’ at Flynn Drive until some time between the years 2026 and 2050.

However, the opportunity can be created to provide space for the following opportunities by 2016:

• A clean production and food industry area;• Some large lots (over 2.5ha each);• Some ‘super lots’ (over 25ha each);• An area for ‘diffi cult to locate’ activities (storage or manufacture of paints, plastics,

cleaners, emulsifi ers, pool chemicals); • Service trades and industries;• General industry;• Regional produce markets; and• Trucking, transport, construction and heavy machinery centres (including sales and

servicing).

It is estimated that these activities could generate 1,650 jobs in the region at the Flynn Drive ‘Integrated Employment Area’ by the year 2016.

It is concluded that the sub-region has the potential to provide over 17,000 jobs, and achieve over 80% employment self-suffi ciency through:

• Private sector jobs provided for in the Brighton Study Area: 8,850 (achieves 43% job self-suffi ciency)

• Population following public sector jobs: 2,070 (increases to 53% job self-suffi ciency)• Other regional employment opportunities: 4,500 Jobs (resulting in 75% job self-

suffi ciency)• Flynn Drive Integrated Employment Area: 1,650 Jobs (resulting in 83% job self-

suffi ciency).

10.2.3 Regional Structuring to Deliver These Employment Outcomes

Successfully realising these employment opportunities requires suffi cient land being reserved for the full range of land uses that could be located at local and district centres and in clusters appropriately located along major through-routes. Public and private sector initiatives will then be required to progressively market and develop this land as the residential population builds. This means that the active pursuit of employment requires the reservation of suitable sites, planning, then designing and developing land. This requires a signifi cantly greater commitment from the public and private sectors than is required in producing residential land and shopping centres.


In order to achieve the strong employment outcomes required, it is essential to realise the potential to tap existing and future employment growth. Essentially this means meeting the needs of small, service sector businesses, and in new premises the demand is for small, affordable service sector space. Most of these activities (responsible for at least 76% of employment creation) are entirely compatible with nearby residential development.

Much of the demand will be for small offi ce space, for prominent premises for medical, health, fi tness, education and training activities, and for light industrial, service trades, storage and distribution premises. It is therefore not suffi cient merely to provide shopping centres and retail space when developing business centres.

The Structure Plan provides for a greater range of employment land uses. This Structure Planning needs to be complemented by more detailed site designs and pro-active promotion and economic development initiatives.

10.2.4 Demand for Space at Integrated Business Centres

At the charrette, the land area and fl oor space that should be provided to accommodate all the demand from ‘footloose’, small, service sector activities and the ‘population-driven’ demand projected to be generated by mature suburbs was estimated. Residential lots are expected by the developers to be ‘sold out’ by the year 2016 and, accordingly, the space requirements will need to accommodate the level of employment and business demand within the following 10 years.

Most of this space is best located in Integrated Business Centres that synergistically combine ‘superior locations’ for different types of activities. The development of these Business Centres will need to be staged according to the increase in demand as population and ‘footloose’ activities are attracted into the area. Initial planning should provide for not less than 50% of the required fl oor space being developed in the proposed Integrated Business Centres. Additional land should be set aside to enable the eventual development of the balance of the total fl oor space, if the desired local employment outcomes are to be achieved.

The identifi ed employment-related fl oor space requirements should be allocated to the centres proposed in sections 9 and 10, according to the size of the population and number of households in the respective centre catchments.

The following distribution of employment-related fl oor space is desirable:

• Butler 12% ( 2,574 households)• Brighton 58% (12,960 households)• Jindalee Beach 4% (1,505 households)• Alkimos 27% (5,066 households)

The Brighton fi gure includes households at Alkimos South that would be in the catchment of the Brighton centre. The Alkimos fi gure does not include the complete (northern) catchment for the Alkimos centre.

The following offi ce fl oorspace should be provided in affordable, small business/offi ce premises in each of the proposed major centres with provision for the requisite site areas:

• Butler 3,550m² nfa requiring 8,000m² net site area (nsa)• Brighton 17,200m² nfa requiring 40,000m² nsa• Jindalee Beach 1,200m² nfa requiring 2,750m² nsa• Alkimos 8,000m² nfa 18,500m² nsa – for the southern part of the Alkimos

catchment


The indicative fl oorspace for the Brighton centre includes space to be provided in the local centre currently under construction on the Marmion Avenue/Knightsbridge Boulevard corner, to meet the requirements of the fi rst stages of residential development.

Industrial/storage space in fl exible, small-scale commercial/light industrial premises needs to be provided as follows:

• Butler 3,000m² nfa requiring 7,800m² nsa• Brighton 14,200m² nfa requiring 37,000m² nsa• Jindalee Beach 1,000m² nfa requiring 2,600m² nsa• Alkimos 6,600m² nfa requiring 17,200m² nsa – for

the southern part of the Alkimos catchment

Again, the indicative fl oorspace for the Brighton centre includes space to be provided in the local centre currently under construction on the Marmion Avenue/Knightsbridge Boulevard corner, to meet the requirements of the fi rst stages of residential development.

The staging of developments to meet the growth in demand will be important to maximise profi tability and minimise the appearance of vacant premises that may attract anti-social behaviour. This will provide suffi cient land for the required developments as Brighton attracts otherwise ‘footloose’ activities and its land uses mature, after the sale of the last residential lots.

Some ‘land banking’ will be necessary to enable the provision of an appropriate range of suitable space to meet the growing demand when the residential population grows, the development matures and otherwise ‘footloose’ activities are attracted to Brighton. Land banking at individual centres will be important to enable the provision of suffi cient space of each type in appropriate business settings at the proposed Integrated Business Centres, as Brighton matures as a business location and employment destination. Temporary uses of the ‘land banked’ sites should be considered to ‘hold’ these for longer term needs.

10.3 Retail Hierarchy

10.3.1 Town Centres

During the charrette, an appropriate urban structure was established, and alternative scenarios of household numbers were developed. At the outset, it was clear that developer expectations of population density in the catchment area were much less than those proposed by the 1996 Jindalee Workshop. Consequently, it was necessary to reduce the projected populations in line with developer projections and realistic yields based on the market surveys undertaken for the charrette, and then determine the relative position and size of the proposed towns of Brighton (Jindalee in the 1996 workshop) and Butler.

As outlined in Section 10.1 and Figure 14, the estimated households in the identifi ed catchment area for the town/district centre that would serve the Brighton area totalled around 13,000 under the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario and 17,000 in the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’ scenario.

Analysis of the likely trade areas when compared with the population projections of the Jindalee Workshops found that suffi cient population was likely to exist for only one town. On discovering this limitation, the issue of ‘which town’ became a major exercise for the charrette.

The Butler district centre is currently planned on the corner of Lukin and Connolly Drive with an indicative area of 23,000m² retail nla. Butler, being the southernmost of the two towns, was


considered to have better inherent trade characteristics for retail activity, but the phasing of the road system, particularly the likely timing of the Freeway after 2015, meant that whilst its retail catchment would exist early, for many years it was going to be a town at the end of a cul-de-sac. Such a condition might be an appropriate place to put a shopping centre, but the ability to grow the town beyond retail was extremely limited, possibly long-term. Providing for Butler’s growth was likely to be diffi cult to manage, as pressure would exist for other land uses on this site, reducing the ability to ‘quarantine’ this land for the ultimate form and function of the town.

In addition, the Joint Venture had proposed a smaller centre midway between the proposed Butler town and the proposed Jindalee town. During the charrette, there was uncertainty as to the role that this centre would play in the regional retail framework. However, the Joint Venture decided to limit this centre to that of a local centre and a fl oorspace level of between 2,000 to 3,000 square metres. Given this commitment, it was then possible to compare the ability of the Butler and Brighton centres to cater to the defi ned catchment area.

The proposed Brighton Town Centre sat higher in the catchment area and was more in the infl uence of the proposed Alkimos centre. However, this centre provided a much better structural case for a mixed use town than the Butler centre; consequently, the relative benefi ts of moving the Alkimos centre northward to generate a better structure of towns with supporting neighbourhoods was explored.

The implications of the retail catchment analysis, the proposed sub-regional structure, and the probable timing of infrastructure were as follows:

• Butler would struggle as a mixed use town for as long as it took to deliver the freeway. Even after the arrival of the freeway, this town centre was relatively offset from the local movement system when compared with the proposed Brighton Town Centre.

• Butler was better positioned in terms of a retail catchment, but the loss of mixed use opportunity and the need to preserve the site in the long term in anticipation of the freeway, more than offset this benefi t.

• The proposed Brighton Town Centre sat relatively ‘high’ in the retail catchment area and was subject to a higher level of competition from Alkimos than was Butler, but this was regarded as less important than the ability to generate a mixed use town in an orderly and effi cient manner.

• Both centres could contain between 15,000 and 20,000 square metres of retail fl oorspace.

• Future planning should consider whether Alkimos could be pushed northward in order to give a greater level of comfort to the proposed town of Brighton.

• Brighton was still likely to be viable, even if Alkimos was left in its original position.

The proposed new town of Brighton has many attributes that would contribute to a viable main street and a context for the creation of mixed use development, including:

• A direct link between the freeway, the rail station and Jindalee Beach• Proximity to, and visible from, the regional distributor, Marmion Avenue• Able to be delivered in accordance with catchment growth, using existing infrastructure• Enhanced by a mid-corridor rail station that has the capacity to draw additional traffi c

through the town• More central to the catchment (both north/south and east/west)• Reinforces rather than competes with the Clarkson centre• Provides a greater regional profi le for Jindalee Beach• Is enhanced by a strong and attractive Jindalee Beach• Capitalises on two good regional distributor roads• Is easily staged.


It was concluded that the proposed Brighton Town Centre, adjacent to the corner of Marmion Avenue and the future Jindalee Drive, provided the best opportunity and characteristics for an active, mixed use town centre.

The ability to deliver a high amenity town with a strong sense of place should not be left to planning codes but should be confi rmed by design controls. It is noted that further work is required on other centres in the area, and some benefi t would accrue to both Brighton and Alkimos if the Alkimos centre was moved northward.

10.3.2 Other Retail Facilities

The overall road structure, site characteristics and available catchment generated a preliminary view of the other centres and their required fl oorspaces that will be required in the Detailed Urban Structure Plan area.

Most proposed centres ranged between 100 square metres and 1,000 square metres; however, some important variations existed. Both Alkimos Beach and Jindalee Beach were provided for as 10,000m² centres catering to assumed large visitor bases.

The former Butler centre was assumed at 5,000 square metres, but its role might be based more on its ability to leverage off freeway access, than as a local centre.

The proposed fi rst stage local centre on Knightsbridge Boulevard was assumed at 2,000m² (refer to No: 4 Figure 12). Other local centres of indicatively 1000m² each are likely at Romeo Road (proposed station), Marmion Avenue North (on Lot 3) and at the Connolly Drive/Jindalee Boulevard junction.

Including the proposed Brighton Town Centre, the retail fl oorspace for the catchment area totals 51,600 square metres. This equates to 1.36 square metres per person in the trade area at standard densities or 1.1 square metres per person at proposed charrette densities.


10.4 Road Network

10.4.1 Future Traffi c Volumes on the Arterial Road Network

The ‘Traffi kplan’ model was used to make the assignments of future traffi c, based on the ‘Transit’ household yield scenario. The following assumptions were used in the modelling;

• Residential Traffi c Generation rates, PM peak hour 0.55 vph outbound 0.35 vph inbound

• Retail Traffi c Generation rates, PM peak hour 5 vph/10m² outbound 5 vph/100m² inbound

The above implies a travel mode split to public transport of about 5%, and consequently if the objectives of promotion of public transport use are successful, then conservative traffi c volume predictions will result. Full details of all of the network coding, trip tables, route classifi cation and all other modeling assumptions are provided in the separate Brighton Data and Modelling Technical Report.

The predicted traffi c fl ows on the street network in the Plan area are shown in Appendix 6. The following Table lists ultimate daily traffi c fl ows on key network elements in Annual Average Daily Traffi c (AADT), vehicle movements per day two-way. These are based upon the modeled fl ows for the PM peak hour, factored up by a ratio of 10.

Table 2: Ultimate Daily Traffi c Volumes on Key Network Elements

ROAD LOCATION PREDICTED AADTMarmion Avenue North of Lukin Drive 36,000

North of Jindalee Boulevard 32,000

Connolly Drive North of Lukin Drive 15,000

North of Jindalee Boulevard 12,000

Lukin Drive East of Marmion Avenue 20,000

East of Connolly Drive 26,000

Jindalee Boulevard West of Marmion Avenue 7,000

East of Marmion Avenue 13,000

East of Connolly Drive 12,000

Other road volumes would need to be ascertained by specifi c locally focussed traffi c analysis including consideration of intersection designs and any local traffi c management requirements.

Each of Connolly Drive, Marmion Avenue, Lukin Drive and Jindalee Boulevard has been identifi ed as a 4-lane road, except for Jindalee Boulevard within the town centre area where two-lane two-way conditions have been assumed in the manner of the traditional ‘mainstreet’ environment.

The above outputs confi rm the suitability of the current planning and that included in the Review Plan for the arterial roads. Specifi cally, four-lane cross-sections mid-block are adequate for the major streets, and two lanes would be adequate for Connolly Drive north of the area where development has been commenced and approvals are being sought.

The volumes on the four-lane section of Marmion Avenue adjacent to the Brighton Town Centre area are not going to be such that full control over access is necessary, and speed limits consistent with a commercial area environment will be suitable. Service roads with short transitions to suit


the commercial environment are appropriate in these areas. This approach concurs with the statement of philosophy by MRWA at the commencement of the charrette process, and with Liveable Neighbourhoods principles.

For a ‘mainstreet’ strip to function well economically, that is to attract a suitable quality and mix of retail and commercial outlets, restaurants and other entertainment uses, and to provide appropriate levels of activity and amenity for users, traffi c volumes in the range of 12,000 to 18,000 vehicle movements per day are usually desirable.

The Brighton Mainstreet traffi c volumes will be in this range at full development, and with appropriate staging of the street network construction, volumes can be kept at reasonably high levels prior to full development.

10.4.2 Design Details for Arterial Routes

The original planning for the major arterial routes was that they would have no vehicular access other than at widely spaced intersections with other major arterial roads and collector streets linking the residential cells. The 60-metre wide reservation allowed for up to six lanes in a divided confi guration, with heavily landscaped verges incorporating cycle paths.

The planning principles of ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ and those that underpin the charrette outcomes do not support the backing of lots onto major roads, but rather propose that service roads and other ways of achieving frontage are used; that routes are designed as Integrator Arterials and integrate land uses across them, rather than acting as dividers.

The traffi c modelling indicates that 6-lane cross-sections are not needed for these roads. Consequently 4-lane divided roads, with a 7-metre wide central median, can be accommodated with service roads and appropriate outer separators within the 60 metres wide reservation. In fact it would be possible to reduce the reservations by about 5 metres if this were really considered worthwhile; however, reticulated services planning and the process necessary to change the designation in the MRS is such that it is not considered worthwhile for such a minor land area.

Figures 15 and 16, Notional Integrator Arterial Cross-Section, show how the above elements can be accommodated within the 60-metre wide reservation. The ‘Main Roads WA Version’ (Figure 15) was prepared during the charrette. The difference between it and the ‘Alternative Version’ (Figure 16) is that splitter islands are omitted from one side of the generic signal controlled intersection. These cross-sections focus particularly on Marmion Avenue.

Figure 16 assumes that a local centre is located on that side of Marmion Avenue (which could be the Brighton Town Centre or other neighbourhood centres), and that pedestrian-scaled streetscapes and interrupted traffi c fl ow conditions are sought in the minor street in the local centre. The ‘free left turn’ confi gurations require wider street reservations, detracting from the relationship of one side of the street with the other in the section where tapered widening is needed under the Main Roads Version. Removing the ‘free left turn’ islands makes the traffi c fl ow in the side street in a more ‘platooned’ manner than with them in place, which is usually a better outcome for pedestrian amenity and safety.

A compromise position (which gives away some of the quality of the side street) would be to allow a ‘free left turn’ island on the departure from the side street, but not the entry side, at Marmion Avenue.


Figure 15 Notional Integrator Arterial Cross-Section: MRWA Version

Figure 16 Notional Integrator Arterial Cross-Section: Alternative Version



–

–

The ‘Alternative Version’ accords with AustRoads Guide to Traffi c Engineering Practice Part 5 in respect of the confi guration of service roads, terminals and their relationship with the major roadway elements. Of particular importance is the presence or otherwise of the deceleration lane downstream of the intersection where the intersection is to service a local or sub-regional centre. Where the subject intersection is located away from such a centre (most likely in a residential precinct) the Main Roads WA version is not considered inappropriate, but where commercial and mixed use premises are proposed, the Alternative Version is preferred.

In the southern section of the charrette area the use of the 60-metre reservation is appropriate, even though a small reduction would be theoretically possible. This is not worthwhile seeking because of the complexities as discussed in relation to Marmion Avenue, but also because of a major sewer installation that is to be constructed in the southern section of Connolly Drive. Consequently the arrangement for Marmion Avenue is also suitable for the southern section of

Connolly Drive. The southern section should be regard as all of the length from Lukin Drive to around 1.8km north.

For Connolly Drive near Jindalee Boulevard where the daily traffi c volumes are less than around 15,000 vehicles per day, a 2-lane cross-section can be used provided that there is provision for on-pavement cycling, parking where needed, staged crossing of the median, and quality intersection design to facilitate all traffi c movements.

From about 1.8km of Lukin Drive, the Connolly Drive reservation and form of construction could be reduced to the form of a two-lane divided subarterial road similar to the Liveable Neighbourhoods ‘District Distributor Integrator B’ routes, with on-pavement cycle lanes and a 6.3-metre wide median, as shown in Figure 17.

The median is wider than for the ‘District Distributor Integrator B’ standard cross-section, but is at 6.3 metres to allow for a staged crossing by a motorcar to be achieved with full protection from the median, and for tree planting with 3-metre clearances from the travel lanes.

Jindalee Boulevard from the Jindalee coastal node to the Freeway will have several different functions. These are:

• Neighbourhood Connector west of Marmion Avenue,

• Town Centre “Main Street” east of Marmion Avenue in the Brighton Town Centre,

• Secondary Arterial or major Neighbourhood Connector east of Brighton Town Centre.

The Liveable Neighbourhoods Neighbourhood Connector indicative design for streets of more than 3,000 vehicles per day is suitable for the section west of Marmion Avenue and in the Town Centre area, and this is shown as Figure 18.

There will be signal control in place at two or more intersections in Brighton Town Centre, and the wider median to allow staged crossings is less important than on Connolly Drive where traffi c volumes will ultimately be similar. The 3-metre median allows planting centrally and a staged crossing opportunity for pedestrians without making the main street too wide. Depending upon chosen species, the median may be able to be reduced to about 2 metres at detailed design stage. Note that the median in Rokeby Road in Subiaco is about 1 metre in width. Figure 19 shows a typical suitable design.

East of the Town Centre the street form should be the same as it is for the northern section of Connolly Drive, as per Figure 17.


10.5 Public Transport Provision

The rail alignment, station locations and station types, and description of rail cross sections were outlined in Chapters 8 and 9. A major element of the charrette was in providing an estimate of the costs to implement the preferred options from the currently proposed railhead at Clarkson to Butler, Brighton, Romeo Road and Alkimos Stations.

An estimate of cost was also provided for an alternative metro rail option in the freeway reservation to the north of Romeo Road, then moving to the west of the freeway to serve a station at Alkimos, which would be the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario if planning progresses as per current strategic plans.

Estimates of patronage levels for the two rail options (preferred and freeway alignment) for the years 2029 and 2015 were also developed based on a number of assumptions on land use development and timing, and of public transport trip generation that were discussed and agreed at the charrette. These estimates were based on the fi ndings of the Brighton Transit Patronage Forecasting Study by SKM dated August 2001.

Costs were estimated to an accuracy of + 25%. They enabled a comparison of net present values of the two rail options based on the possible implementation timeframes outlined at the charrette. Note that these costs were refi ned down from the costs indicated in Appendix 5.

This comparison indicates that the mid corridor rail option has higher household numbers and higher patronage levels. In capital costs, the additional cost of the rail mid corridor is more than offset by the savings in not having to provide an arterial/trunk route bus service. Cost benefi t issues are dealt with more fully in Chapter 11.

Table 3 Net Value Comparison of the Two Rail Options

Rail Mid-Corridor Rail on FreewayTotal Households 22,000 17,000

Rail to Brighton/Jindalee 2006/2007 2011/2012

Rail to Alkimons (Romeo Road) 2013 2013

Public transport patronageTrips per household 2001 2003

0.51.0

0.5 0.8

Train patronage (2029) 13,200 8,250Rail capital costsClarkson to Brighton/JindaleeBrighton/Jindalee to Alkimos

$60million$30million

$56million$30million

Trunk buses (5 years) not required $20million (net 5 years)Net Present Value @ 5% (Difference) $16.6million


10.6 Staging

The main staging objectives are to:• provide adequate land supply to meet likely sales rates, but away from the areas

requiring more detailed planning and zoning amendments;• avoid development in the Brighton Town Centre walkable catchment until rail is

constructed to service this centre, so the development that occurs can respond to the availability of transit;

• accommodate a mix of housing product being developed at the same time on several fronts.

The assumptions used in developing staging were:• The development rate of the Brighton Joint Venture land is 400 lots per year (approx. 33

lots per month) ;• Subdivision applications are submitted in stages averaging 400 lots;• Of the 400 lots approved, 100 would be constructed at one time;• A subdivision application for new lots would need to be submitted 12 months prior to the

end of sales of the previous stage; and• Planning approvals take 4 months.

Other land take-up rates are estimated as follows :• For Lot 12 – 100 lots per year from 2003;• For Lot 10 – 100 lots per year from 2004; and• For Alkimos coastal node – 100 lots per year from 2005.

In staging terms, the Brighton Joint Venture will build out from the current approvals. That is, it will extend to the south-east to the school sites, to the north along Marmion Avenue, and to the east over Connolly Drive in the next two to three stages (Stage 2 now submitted, Stage 3 likely to be east of Connolly Drive). The Brighton Joint Venture will sell two products – cottage and traditional lots – in this market.

It is unclear how and when the south eastern-most landholding, located south of Lukin Drive, will be marketed. This could be either as an extension of the earlier stages south, or with a possible station at Butler, say around 2006. This may create an additional ‘product’ of station precinct lots.

There are four potential ‘products’ :

• ‘transit’-based product at Ridgewood;• town centre product at Brighton/Jindalee;• traditional and cottage; and• a coastal product on Lots 9,10 and 12. There are likely to be three coastal lots on the

market at one time, so release dates for the coastal Brighton Joint Venture Lot 9 are an issue.

The product mix increases as the town centre, beach nodes and rail become viable, increasing the scope for higher density and improved lot yields.

By 2005-2006, there should be an estimated 3,000 households in the catchment of the proposed Brighton/Jindalee town centre (refer Figure 14). This will include lots in the existing northern areas of Quinns North and Merriwa, some lots at Lots 9 and 10 on the coast and the Joint Venture Holdings. These households will be adequate to support a 7,000m² centre at Brighton/Jindalee.


At this time, the Brighton Joint Venture can either extend :

• East of Connolly Drive;• Into Ridgewood North, as the rail line and Butler Station are likely to be under construction

by 2006, creating the potential for station precinct lots as discussed above, although the station is likely to be located on the northern (other) side of Lukin Drive;

• Into the 400m ‘edge’ of the Brighton/Jindalee centre catchment (as the rail is likely to be under construction and will be an emerging context for density). Staging would then need to proceed around the centre to support it with custom. The establishment of the town centre creates the opportunity for a new product of ‘density town housing’.

If the town centre’s retail fl oorpace is deferred for several years until demand is greater, there may be pressure from other centres such as Clarkson to expand to cater for this catchment population, which, if successful, may further delay commencement of the Brighton Town Centre.


11 COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENT

11.1 Introduction

A number of indicators were identifi ed that provided a basis for comparing the social and economic benefi ts of the two scenarios. These are shown on Table 4. Some of these are qualitative improvements; however, a number could be quantifi ed to enable direct comparison of the two scenarios: ‘Business as Usual’ and ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’.

The preferred sub-regional plan was measured and evaluated for its levels of performance (qualitative and quantitative costs and benefi ts) in terms of social and economic criteria.

As was noted in Chapter, the environmental issues prevailing within the Study Area were not examined in the same level of detail as the social and economic criteria, largely due to the time constraints of the charrette process and the diffi culties in quantifying what are largely qualitative values.

11.2 OverviewTwo scenarios were used as a basis for the cost-benefi t assessment:

1. ‘Business as Usual’, with the original Jindalee structure plan and railway in the freeway reservation

2. The preferred sub-regional structure plan with high lot densities and the railway line within the corridor north of Butler station: ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’

The key assumptions of the two scenarios are as follows:

Scenario 1:

• 17,200 lots at 2.6 people per household in the sub-region

• Lot size between 500m² average and 1,000m²

• Job numbers at 25% of self-suffi ciency requirement with a labour force participation rate of 50%

• Lower net employment levels, and fewer casual jobs

• Public transport usage 13% reducing to 8% with no greenhouse gas improvements

• Freeway constructed by 2015

• No rail constructed until 2015, commuter bus extension required to deliver public transport to the area

• Household income 10% less than Perth average

• Land values 10% lower per square metre than scenario 2 due to homogeneity of product

• Infrastructure costs, especially roads and hydraulics 10% higher due to lower dwelling yields per hectare


• No journey-to-work time savings

• No marketing benefi ts

• Community facilities funded entirely through public investment

• Avoidance of bus capital cost

• Higher household income and housing affordability

• Infrastructure costs 10% lower (road and hydraulic infrastructure) cost savings

Scenario 2:

• 22,100 lots at 2.6 people per household in the sub-region

• Lot size 40m² average; 800m² gross

• 8,100 locally generated jobs plus 5,700 in major attractors

• Higher net employment levels, and more casual jobs

• 15 % worker patronage on public transport. Walking and cycling trips increase by 100%. 13,000 public transport boardings.

• Public transport use equates to 3,000 vehicles per hour on the Freeway which is the equivalent of one lane. This allows the freeway to be deferred until 2020 (fi ve years on from Scenario 1). The deferral, 5 kilometres at $10 million per kilometre, is a $50 million deferral.

• Rail constructed by 2006. Avoidance of commuter bus capital costs and bus operation and maintenance savings costs over fi ve years, for 6,000 patrons equates to $20 million.

• Household income above Perth average, and better housing affordability through choice of housing product

• Land values higher than Scenario 2 due to diversity and quality of product

• Infrastructure costs, especially roads and hydraulics, 10% lower due to higher dwelling yields per hectare

• Average rate per house of $600 per assessment and an average rate per commercial premises of $500 per assessment applied over greater number of properties

• Journey-to-work time savings

• Marketing benefi ts

• Private, in addition to public investment, to fund community facilities resulting in more facilities or public cost savings

• Avoidance of bus capital cost

• Infrastructure costs 10% lower (road and hydraulic infrastructure) cost savings

In both scenarios, trip generation rates are assumed to remain constant at 3.2 trips per person.


Table 4 Project Assessment Indicators

Activity Levels Economic Benefi ts Social Benefi ts

Population :Composition

Visitation frequencyTotal visitationExpenditure levelsTraffi c movement

Increased accessDecreased movement levelsMore local entrepreneursNot a ‘low wealth’ mono-culture

Sectorial :Increased

EmploymentIncreased sales/volume/outputProfi tsProductsResearch and developmentMultipliers

Community developmentIncreased diversity/cultureIncreased employmentIncreased wealth levels

Effi ciency :Cost reduction/avoidance Sharing

Decrease Journey to WorkPopulation densityLess Public infrastructureLess road lengthless/larger facilitiesReduced Energy usageReduced Maintenance levelsLess Average Waste levelsPotential Developer Contribu-tionsLess State Local Expenditure

Safety levelsSecurity levelsNoise levelsPollution level reductionEnvironmental sustainabilityImproved Public Health

Locational :Geographic Impact

Increased property valuesincreased take up ratesIncreased constructioninvestmentcritical mass for public and pri-vate facilitiesincreased land usage

Increased synergies/impact linkages for public and private facilitiesUrban characterEnhancement/improve amenity

Marketing Investment certaintyInternational and National adver-tisingLess public infrastructureMedia coverageInnovationQualityLiveability

Cultural acknowledgement


Quantifying the differences between the two scenarios yielded the following benefi ts from the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit’ scenario.

For the landowners/developers• Additional lots (5,000 lots assumed) • Cost reduction / avoidance in infrastructure • Plus faster take up rates / higher psq.m value

TOTAL

$25m$44mno costing

$69mFor the City of Wanneroo• Residential rates on 5,000 additional properties at $600p.a over a 15 year

timeframe • Commercial rates on 40,000sq.m of additional commercial properties and

at $500 per assessment • Plus less facilities/more concentrated facilities less maintenance

TOTAL

$45m

$3mno costing

$48mFor the State Government• Deferral of Freeway 5 years • Bus capital / operational saving • Land Tax benefi t (new lots)

$15m$20m$2m

$37m

11.3 Conclusion

The analysis indicates that developers, landowners and the City of Wanneroo will be signifi cantly better off economically. In addition, the State Government will be $37m better off from pursuing the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods plus Transit scenario’. The State Government would achieve savings from deferral of Freeway costs, bus capital and operating savings, and additional land tax of $37million, but would need to fund the cost of rail, estimated at $50 million to $60 million, leaving a shortfall of the order of $15 to $25 million. Overall, residents would have the benefi ts of access to more local jobs, journey-to-work time reductions and improved housing choice, estimated at $40 million in value. The State would also benefi t from lower greenhouse gas emissions from shorter car journeys and greater public transport patronage.

The overall ‘bottom line’ economic and social benefi ts were calculated as being of the order of $180 million, with a benefi t-cost ratio in excess of three.

Opportunities for addressing the shortfall were considered at the charrette. The two options that all stakeholders saw as having some merit were a lot levy to fund the early provision of rail (indicatively of the order of $900 to $1000 per lot) or a differential rate at 10% per lot for all new lots for 15 years. These fi nancial implementation measures need to be further refi ned, but offer the scope to provide an innovative funding mechanism for early public transport into an area, that would be achieved largely through higher yields and diversion of major road expenditures.

TOTAL


12 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY – THE NEXT STEPS

The charrette identifi ed a number of tasks required for the effective and effi cient delivery of community and landowner outcomes. These are implementation measures that relate primarily to governance, to the planning process, and to fi nancial mechanisms. The key implementation item is the delivery of a rail line and stations to Jindalee and Butler, by 2006. This will be critical in creating a transit-based town centre that provides a context for density, employment and reduced car dependence.

Implementation tasks, more specifi c actions, stakeholder roles and general sequencing for the Butler Joint Venture landholdings are outlined below. The main stakeholders are the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the Butler Land Company (Brighton Joint Venture), and the City of Wanneroo (CoW). Adjacent landowners are also impacted, particularly the owners of the coastal Lots 9 (now the Brighton Joint Venture),10 and 12, the northern Lot 3, and the Alkimos-Eglinton landowners.

Implementation of charrette outcomes that relate to landholdings outside the Butler Joint Venture land are also summarised.

12.1 Governance

Delivery of the Charrette outcomes requires the proactive management of the planning process and funding mechanisms, and the timely delivery of social and physical infrastructure. A dedicated governance structure is considered essential to achieve this. Specifi cally, the following are recommended:

• A Steering Committee with representation from City of Wanneroo (Mayor/CEO), Western Australian Planning Commission (Executive Chairman), Brighton Joint Venture, Ministry for Housing, and the Department of Environment and Water Catchment Management (DEWCM) to oversee the project;

• A Technical Offi cers group with representation from City of Wanneroo, DPI, Brighton Joint Venture, Ministry for Housing and DEWCM, and other occasional representation as required, to manage implementation;

• A District Project Offi cer within DPI to be responsible within the agency for co-ordinating subdivision, Local and District Structure Plans, MRS amendments, integrating adjacent districts (Alkimos, St Andrews), negotiating other implementation items and servicing the Steering Committee and Technical Offi cers groups;

• A Place Manager within the City of Wanneroo to be responsible within the agency for co-ordinating subdivision, Local and District Structure Plans, negotiating other implementation items, co-ordinating other local Government inputs (economic development etc.) and servicing the Steering Committee and Technical Offi cers groups;

• A commitment from all those involved in the process to proactive, outcomes-based approaches to ensure that the complex set of actions required are delivered.

The main planning process tasks required are the preparation of a District Structure Plan (DSP), Metropolitan Region Scheme amendments to implement a number of the regional elements of the charrette outcomes, and changes to the Council’s District Planning Scheme and related policies. The items, responsibilities and sequencing are outlined below.


12.2 District Structure Plan Preparation and Adoption

• DPI release of charrette outcomes report (scheduled for early 2002)• DPI, City of Wanneroo, Brighton Joint Venture landowners to undertake audit and review

of charrette outcomes to ensure consistency and compliance with vision and project objectives.

• DPI will require District Structure Plan contents to be accordance with Liveable Neighbourhoods requirements

• City of Wanneroo to advise of any specifi c other content requirements in DSP and specify matters that are to be included in Local Structure Plans.

• City of Wanneroo to confi rm public open space requirements and especially resolve location of Stage 1 District open space.

• Joint Venture to prepare District Structure Plan for submission generally based on charrette outcomes.

• District Structure Plan approved through City of Wanneroo and WAPC.

12.3 District Structure Plan Contents

• DPI to commission further work to confi rm rail/road crossing locations.• DPI to broker Marmion Avenue and Connolly Drive alignments, reserve widths, cross

sections, service road treatments, signalisations and intersection spacing with Brighton JV, City of Wanneroo, and MRWA.

• Realignment of Marmion Ave through north Jindalee, and partial narrowing and partial deletion of the Connolly Drive road reserve are required. Changes to alignments, reserve widths and partial road closures are to be implemented by DPI and City of Wanneroo through MRS amendments and partial road closures.

• DPI to commission review of Lukin Drive road requirements to determine if narrowing of reservation (currently 60 metres) is required.

• City of Wanneroo and DPI to commission review of pedestrian and cycle requirements and City of Wanneroo to initiate amendment to developer contribution arrangements in Scheme to implement.

• MRWA to confi rm design and land requirements for freeway interchange for Jindalee Boulevard.

• DPI Metropolitan Centres Policy to be amended to relocate Butler District centre north to Jindalee.

• City of Wanneroo to consider new and relocated centres for Local Centres Policy, especially Jindalee.

• DSP to include guidance on form of district and local centres, employment and density targets.

• Further consultancy advice by Brighton Joint Venture required to confi rm protection for Carnaby’s Cockatoo, and local bushland protection, balanced against other environmental objectives.

• City of Wanneroo to provide specifi c advice on Public Open Space requirements for local structure planning and progressive subdivision, and resolve District Open Space issues.

12.4 Metropolitan Region Scheme

• MRS amendments required by DPI for realignment of Marmion Ave road reserve at north Jindalee, and narrowing and deletion of Connolly Drive. Inclusion of narrowing of Lukin Drive may also be warranted. DPI to investigate the potential for use of the minor amendment process for these changes.


• MRS major amendment required by DPI for reservation of rail alignment and stations through Butler and Jindalee.

• MRWA advice on the need for MRS changes to facilitate half diamond interchange to serve proposed new Jindalee Boulevard, and any required MRS amendments.

12.5 Local Structure Plans and subdivision

• Brighton Joint Venture and DPI to investigate indicative earthwork levels for subdivision adjacent to required future rail bridging.

• A staged program for the submission of Local Structure Plans within the framework of the District Structure Plan required to guide subdivision and development and particularly implement densities through R codes.

• DPI and City of Wanneroo to confi rm required content of Centre Plans.• Centre plans to be prepared by Brighton Joint Venture for Jindalee and Butler

centres.

12.6 Other Implementation Items

• Extension of Master Planning for Northern Suburbs Rail Line to Butler and Jindalee required by DPI, for completion by end 2003 for delivery of rail by end 2006.

• DPI to acquire land for rail and stations.• Disposal of surplus land from road reserve closures (Connolly Drive and possibly

Lukin Drive).• Commitments and programs (Joint Venture and City of Wanneroo) for delivery of

density, employment targets, environmental initiatives and community infrastructure.

12.7 Financial

• Further consultancy by DPI to confi rm cost items of rail (including bridging) and other physical infrastructure to refi ne fi nancials.

• Further consultancy by DPI to refi ne (public) benefi t cost-ratios, rail and other infrastructure costing, funding (levy) mechanism and levy contributions and management.

• Agreement to implementation and ongoing management mechanism for lot levy to fund rail to be agreed by State Government.

There are also implementation measures required on land beyond the Brighton Joint Venture land holding, including negotiating the coastal node at Jindalee, progressing district structure planning for adjacent landholdings and integrating planning for the Alkimos Eglinton area with proposals for Butler-Brighton, particularly so rail and road infrastructure and centre locations work together.

Over the course of a week the Butler- Brighton charrette reviewed and explored options for the future development of a major growth corridor of Perth that will accommodate over 20,000 households. The charrette developed a framework for more sustainable development that is measurably superior in economic and social performance to the current approaches to planning for fringe suburban areas.

The charrette outcomes will require refi ning as more detailed planning progresses, and a key implementation requirement is a fi rm State Government commitment to the delivery of rail to Brighton Town Centre by 2006. However, it is equally as important that the implementation phases be adequately resourced and that the stakeholders work proactively and in partnership for these mutually benefi cial outcomes.


APPENDIX 1: THE CHARRETTE PROCESS

What is a Charrette?

A Charrette provides an alternative to traditional sequential planning processes, and is an interactive forum where ideas can be discussed and debated by stakeholders. It offers the unique advantage of a ‘live’ environment that provides immediate feedback to the planners and designers, thus increasing the prospects for a sense of understanding and ownership of the outcomes by all participants.

Charrettes typically deliver the following benefi ts :

• More meaningful stakeholder involvement;• Enhanced communication and an increased awareness of issues by all parties;• A faster planning process;• Better co-ordinated implementation programs;• Improved consensus and ownership of the outcomes;• Better design outcomes based on holistic inputs; and• Outcomes that are better considered and more cost-effective.

What Happens During a Charrette

Most Charrettes follow a generally similar program, that involves introductory briefi ng sessions designed to follow up on the briefi ng booklet and confi rm the parameters for the week’s work. There is also usually a site tour at the start of the week.

The principal components of the Charrette are the design sessions, where the main work of the Charrette is carried out, and the review sessions, at which the design outcomes and other fi ndings are presented to all stakeholders for comment. While the design sessions are in progress, other groups may be involved in meetings on particular issues. Participants who are not directly involved in the design teams will generally be allocated other tasks, to make the best use of the resources available.

Why a Charrette for Butler?

A Charrette is seen as the most appropriate method to develop and test approaches to the integration of public transport with urban development in the North-West Corridor, focussed on mixed use, transit-orientated neighbourhoods and town centres as the context for local employment generation. The Butler Charrette used the Butler area as a case study to explore and evaluate options, develop principles and identify implementation strategies, at the scales of a ‘district structure plan’ and town centre designs.

The Butler Charrette differed from some other similar exercises in two important ways :

• The outcomes of design Workshops and Charrettes are typically non-binding, requiring further negotiation between stakeholders before an implementation program can be developed and agreed. However, a principal aim of the Butler Charrette was to reach agreement on the key issues and principles so as to enable more detailed design work and the statutory process needed to put the outcomes in place to proceed as quickly as possible.

• As a principal part of the Charrette, a comparative evaluation and benefi t-cost analysis of the options developed were carried out “live” during the week of the Charrette, using a framework and criteria developed in advance.


APPENDIX 2: INVITED CHARRETTE PARTICIPANTS AND CHARRETE PROGRAM

List of Invited Participants

CHARRETTE TECHNICAL GROUPName Title Role

Ministry for PlanningEvan Jones Director, Urban Design and Major Places Facilitation

Marion Thompson Manager, Urban Design and Major Places Facilitation

David Patman Snr Project Offi cer, Urban Design and Major Places Planning

Munira Mackay Snr Urban Designer, Urban Design and Major Places Urban design

Malcolm Mackay Snr Urban Designer, Urban Design and Major Places Urban design

Karina Šunk Urban Designer, Urban Design and Major Places Urban design

Julie Stewart Planning Offi cer, Urban Design and Major Places Statutory planning

Paul Sanders Snr Planning Offi cer, Metropolitan North Statutory planning

Neil Foley Manager, Metropolitan North Statutory planning

Steve Goldie Executive Director, Local and Regional Planning Urban design

Stuart McKnight Industry and Infrastructure Economics

Alan Kleidon Snr Transport Engineer Transport

Angela Clare Snr Project Planner, Metropolitan North Statutory planning

Nicole Gioffri Snr Planning Offi cer,Metropolitan North Statutory planning

City of WannerooCharles Johnson Director, Planning and Development Planning

Ian Bignell Strategic Planning Strategic planning

Roman Zagwocki Manager, Strategic Planning Traffi c engineering

Tracey Martell Team Leader – Policy and Planning Social Planning

Ian Martinus Economic Development Offi cer Employment

Paul Watt Environmental Planner Environment

Jim Duff S/D Engineer Traffi c

Rob Korenhof Manager Infrastructure Management Infrastructure

Satterley Group and planning consultants (Lots 7, 8 and 11)Tony Arias Deputy Managing Director Development

Sandy Biagioni Project Manager Development

Department of TransportBarrow Emerson Manager, Integrated Transport Planning Transport

Duncan Foster Transport Planner Transport

Main Roads Paul Trichilo Manager, Road Network Planning Regional road design

Craig Wooldridge Traffi c and Safety Services Regional road design

Department of Environmental ProtectionDarren Walsh Manager, Environmental Planning Environment


Name Title Role

Macroplan appointed by the Satterley GroupBrian Haratsis Managing Director Economics/evaluation

Denise Friend Manager, Market Research and Conferences Economics/evaluation

Patrick Partners appointed by the City of WannerooMike Cullen Principal Retail planning and form

TTM Consulting appointed by the Ministry for PlanningJim Higgs Director Traffi c Engineering

ESD appointed by the Ministry for PlanningWendy Morris Director Facilitation and Urban Design

Chappell and Lambert appointed by the Satterley GroupPeter Chappell Principal Urban Design

Ian Everett Principal Planning

Cossil and Webley appointed by the Satterley GroupCraig Hansen Senior Engineer Civil Engineering

Roy Webley Director Civil Engineering

Sinclair Knight Merz appointed by the Satterley GroupCarol Jelley Senior Traffi c Engineer Rail and Transport

Emmerson Richardson Senior Executive, Transport Planning Rail and Transport

Landcorp and Woodsome Consultants for the Alkimos landownersBarbara Gdowski Woodsome Management Designer

Louise Ainsworth Landcorp Designer

John Syme and Co.John Syme Principal Economics

CHARRETTE CONSULTATION GROUPName Title Role

Ministry for PlanningIan Macrae Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Policy Formation

Richard Kay Senior Policy Offi cer Policy Formation

John Chortis Manager, Industry and Coordination

Dale Stokes Project Manager, Industry and Coordination

Imre Szito Acting Manager, Transport Branch Traffi c

Mike Harris Acting Director General

Paul Frewer Acting Chief Executive Offi cer

Landstart (Lots 7, 8 and 11)Richard Elliot Strategic Land Planner Housing development

Glenn Finlay Manager, Development and Sales Planning

Anne Arnold Director, Offi ce of Housing Policy Housing Policy

Estates Development Company (Lot 10)Mike Jones Project Manager Landowner


APPOINTED CONSULTANTS

Colin Heath and Associates (Lot 12)Colin Heath Managing Director Landowner

Brad Paddon Project Manager Landowner

John Markham Managing Director Landowner

Silverton and planning consultants (Lot 3)Gordon Howared Silverton Landowner

Geoff Lewis Gray and Lewis Planning

City of Wanneroo (Offi cers, Mayor and Councillors)Mayor John Kelly Mayor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Judy Hughes Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Terry Loftus Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Glynis Monks Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Rudi Steffens Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Alan Blencowe Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Lynn O’Grady Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Ian Goodenough Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Frank Cvitan Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Sam Salpietro Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Maureen Grierson Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Brett Treby Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr John Stewart Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Cr Dot Newton Councillor, City of Wanneroo

Denis Blair Technical Services Traffi c engineering

Housing DeveloperDale Alcock Director, Dale Alcock Homes Planning

RAAF Village (Merriwa)Alan White Estate Manager Local residents

Landcorp and Eglinton Estate (Landowner)Tasio Cokis Project Manager, Woodsome Management Planning

Main Roads WAMoshin Muttaqui Planning Engineer Road Planning

Water and Rivers CommissionDr Marnie Leybourne Manager, Natural Resources Water sensitive design

Water CorporationRoger Bulstrode Branch Manager, Land Development Water supply and planning

Education Department of WAJohn Nielson School planning

John Moore Planning Analyst School planning

Richard Bloor Project Manager School planning

Housing Industry AssociationIan Holloway Director Planning


Members of ParliamentHon. Ken Travers MLC

Mrs Dianne Guise MLA

TOKYO CorporationDusan Mills Project Manager, Tokyo Landowner

Western Australian Planning CommissionCr Elizabeth Taylor Cr Elizabeth Eaton

Conservation Council of W.A.David Wake Project Offi cer, Smogbusters


Charrette Agenda

Note:Charrette Technical Group was present throughout Days 1- 5 of the CharretteCharrette Consultation Group was present during Day 1 presentations, Day 3 interim reviewsession, and Day 5 fi nal presentation.

DAY 1 MONDAY 20 AUGUST 20018.30 – 9.00 a.m.9.00 – 9.10 a.m.9.10 – 9.20 a.m.9.20 – 9.30 a.m.

9.30 - 10.15 a.m.

10.15 – 10.30 a.m.10.30 – 10.45 a.m.10.45 – 11.00 a.m.11.00 – 12.30 a.m.12.30 – 1.00 p.m.1.00 – 2.30 p.m.2.30 – 3.00 p.m.3.00 – 3.30 p.m.3.30 – 5.30 p.m.

Arrival and registrationCoffee Welcome Introduction • Outline purpose of Butler Charrette, scope, objectives and expectations• Introduce participantsIssues of Change and Principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods • Regional structuring• Transit orientated mixed use development• Employment generationKey issues for the Butler Charrette and program (tasks and QuestionsMorning tea Briefi ng Session 1 Lunch at venueBriefi ng Session Afternoon teaContinue Briefi ngsCharrette coordination and scenario settingDesign Session 1• Commence regional structure scenario options• Confi rm base case data and refi ne as required

DAY 2 TUESDAY 21 AUGUST 20019.00 – 9.15 a.m.

9.15 – 10.30 a.m.10.30 – 10.40 a.m.10.40 – 11.45 a.m.

11.45 – 12.30 p.m.

12.30 – 1.00 p.m.1.00 – 3.15 p.m.3.15 – 3.25 p.m.3.25 – 4.30 p.m.4.30 – 5.30 p.m.

Team Meeting, outcomes of Day 1 and expectations for Day 2Coffee Design Session 2Morning teaInternal Review Session 1• Review regional structure design options and defi ne areas for detailed design (town centre, mixed use and station precincts)Design Session 3• Refi ne regional structure design options for measurement, and commence detailed design• Handover regional structure design options for draft economic evaluation Lunch at venue Design Session 4Afternoon teaDesign Session 5Internal Review Session 2• Regional structure design options and draft economic evaluation


DAY 3 WEDNESDAY 22 AUGUST 20019.00 – 9.15 a.m.9.15 – 10.30 a.m.

10.30 – 10.40 a.m.10.40 – 11.45 a.m.

11.45 – 12.00 p.m.

12.30 – 1.00 p.m.1.00 – 3.15 p.m.3.15 – 3.25 p.m.3.25 – 4.30 p.m.4.30 – 6.00 p.m.

Team Meeting, outcomes of Day 2 and expectations for Day 3Design Session 6• Up-date regional structure design options and economic evaluationas appropriate• Up-date and continue detailed design optionsMorning teaInternal Review Session• Review detailed design options (town centre, mixed use and station precincts) Design Session 7• Continue detailed design options• Handover detailed design options for draft economic evaluation Lunch at venue Design Session 8Afternoon teaDesign Session 9Interim Review Session• Regional structure and detailed design options, and draft economic evaluation

DAY 4 THURSDAY 23 AUGUST 20019.00 – 9.15 a.m.9.15 – 10.30 a.m.

10.30 – 10.40 a.m.10.40 – 12.30 a.m.

12.30 – 1.00 p.m.1.00 – 2.00 p.m.

2.00 – 3.30 p.m.

3.30 – 3.40 p.m.3.40 – 5.30 p.m.

Team meeting, outcomes of Day 3 and expectations for Day 4Design Session 10• Up-date detailed design options and economic evaluation as appropriate • Continue detailed design optionsMorning teaDesign Session 11• Continue detailed design options• Handover detailed design options for fi nal economic evaluationLunch at venue Internal Review Session 4• Agree drawings for Final Presentation• (Regional structure design options and detailed design options)Design Session 12• Commence drawings for Final PresentationAfternoon teaDesign Session 13• Continue drawings for Final Presentation

DAY 5 FRIDAY 24 AUGUST 20019.00 – 9.15 a.m.9.15 – 10.30 a.m.10.30 – 10.40 a.m.10.40 – 12.30 a.m.

12.30 – 1.00 p.m.1.00 – 1.30 p.m.

1.30 – 3.50 p.m.3.50 – 4.00 p.m.4.00 – 6.00 p.m.6.00 p.m. onwards

Team meeting, outcomes of Day 4 and Design Session 14Morning teaDesign Session 15• Finalise drawings for Final Presentation• Finalise economic evaluation• Commence structure of PowerPoint Presentation Lunch at venue Internal Review Session• Agree to format of Final Presentation Design Session 16Afternoon teaFinal Presentation Drinks


APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF BRIEFING BOOKLET TOPICS

BRIEFING TOPICSTopic Subject Presenter No.Planning Context NW Corridor: statutory planning

contextNeil Foley, Manager Metropolitan North - Ministry for Planning

1

Local planning context Charles Johnson, Director, Planning and DevelopmentCity of Wanneroo

2

Butler Joint Venture development programme

Sandy Biagioni, Project ManagerSatterley Group

3

Transport Public transport issues Barrow Emerson, Manager Integrated Transport Planning Department of Transport

4

Regional road planning Paul Trichilo, Manager Road Network PlanningMRWA

5

Infrastructure Local Government Engineering Works & Maintenance Considerations

Dennis Blair, Director Technical Services - City of Wanneroo

6

Demographics Demographics & Lot Development

Stuart McKnight, Industry and Infrastructure - MFP

7

Economic Development

Local economy, employment and initiatives

Ian Martinus, Economic Development Offi cerCity of Wanneroo

8

Retail and Commercial sectors Mike Cullen, PrincipalPatrick Partners

9

Evaluation/Benefi t-Cost analysis

Joint Venture development area Brian Haratsis and/or Denise Friend Macroplan

10

Public Evaluation Criteria Dave Patman, Senior Project Offi cer Ministry for Planning

11

Environment Local ecological issues and sustainability factors

Paul Watt, Environmental PlannerCity of Wanneroo

12

Lots 7, 8, Pt 11, 32 and 33 Butler Environmental Characteristics

Phil Bayley, Senior Associate DirectorBowman Bishaw Gorham

Infrastructure Infrastructure provision & coordination

Craig Hansen,Cossill and Webley

13

Community Community facilities; community development and social/cultural planning

Tracey Martell, Team Leader – Policy and PlanningCity of Wanneroo

14

Housing Housing Trends & Innovations Dale Alcock, DirectorDale Alcock Homes

15

Education Future school requirements and planning

John Moore,EDWA

16


APPENDIX 4: RESULTS OF RESIDENTS’ SURVEY

Appendix 4 summarises the results of the residents survey, undertaken by Macroplan for the Brighton Joint Venture. 148 purchasers at Brighton were surveyed and a further 305 existing residents of the City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup. The information sought related to residential location determinants and employment and travel characteristics specifi cally;

• Existing residential location and other areas for consideration when purchasing;• Reasons for purchase in a particular location;• Home ownership;• Level of importance of various services and facilities;• Things most liked about their local neighbourhood;• Improvements that could take place in their residential areas;• Employment characteristics including place of employment and industry sector;• How people travel to work;• Public transport use for work and other purposes;• Shopping locations; and• Future residential intentions.

Results of the surveys indicated the following characteristics of new residents at Brighton:

• 95% intend to build and live in their new dwelling.• 71% are new home buyers; 16% are second home buyers.• 78% of the population have moved residential locations in the past fi ve years at least once

and some more than three times.• Residents choose to live in the Butler location because it is close to the beach (20%),

because the land is affordable (15%), and because the land is seen to have good investment potential (11%).

The wider survey areas had the following demographic. employment and transport characteristics;

• 21% of working residents travel to Joondalup for their employment. 17% travel to Perth/West Perth/East Perth; 14% ‘travel around’ with their employment; 8% work in Wanneroo. The remaining 41% work in other suburbs scattered about the metropolitan area, with Osborne Park (6%) being the highest of these ‘other’ attractors.

• 82% of working residents claim to travel less than 30 minutes to their place of employment.

• The greatest employment industries are retail (16%), personal and other services (12%), construction (9%), accommodation/cafes/restaurants (7%), communication services (7%), education (7%), and government administration and defence (6%).

• 81% travel to work by car or motorbike; 1% work from home. The remainder use public transport or walk.

• In terms of future public transport, the fi rst preference for work purposes would be train, followed by express bus service, then light rail, with local commuter bus within the suburb the least favoured.

• 51% said they would catch public transport to work instead of taking the car if it was available. The fi gure increased to 61% for recreation purposes.

• 37% of the population is aged 36 years and over.• Couples with children make up only 46% of the total households.


APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS

Alignment and Technology

The charrette considered alternatives for high capacity transit alignments and technology, based on two studies prepared prior to the charette.

The three alignment options that were considered at the 1996 Jindalee workshop were again used:

Corridor A Mitchell Freeway alignment Corridor B Connolly Drive alignment Corridor C between Connolly Drive and Marmion Avenue

Different technology solutions have been examined for each corridor. Traditional urban rail (metro rail) and busway options have been considered for each of the three corridors. Light rail (LRT) options have been considered for corridors B and C. Light rail has not been considered on the freeway alignment as its advantages over metro rail are in providing direct access to town centres. The full range of options is:

Option A1 Metro rail in centre of Mitchell FreewayOption A2 Busway on western side of Mitchell FreewayOption B1 Metro rail alignment on Connolly DriveOption B2 Busway on alignment of Connolly DriveOption B3 Light rail on alignment of Connolly DriveOption C1 Metro rail west of Connolly Drive Option C2 Busway between Connolly Drive and Marmion AvenueOption C3 Light rail west of Connolly Drive

Technology Implications

It needs to be recognised that the choice of technology stems from its characteristics, particularly passenger capacity, speed and level of segregation. Higher operating speeds, such as metro rail, require segregation for safety. High speed and segregation requirements result in planning impacts such as the severance of urban areas, noise and vibration impacts, and separation of stations from the urban fabric; and in service impacts on service frequency, travel times and catchment size.

In general, metro rail provides a high speed, high capacity service, with purpose built stations spaced generally at least 2km apart, serving a large catchment and allowing for long service corridors. LRT and buses operate at lower capacity and lower speeds (LRT has the higher passenger capacity of the two), but alignments and stations can be integrated more easily into urban areas than metro rail, with lower noise, vibration and amenity impacts, and with the ability to operate on or adjacent to the street network. Buses have the fl exibility to operate in a busway, but are able to leave busways to operate on the local street.


Rail Options

Preliminary costs for options A1, B1 and C1 range from $48m (A1) to $72m (C1). The cost differences are due to the exit structure for the rail to leave the freeway, land costs, road bridges over rail and additional earthworks.

The lower costs for A1 (Freeway option) need to be considered against the likely lower patronage for this option, due to the need for most residents to use a car or bus to access the station. This mode transfer serves as a penalty to patrons.

LRT and Bus options

The non-freeway light rail and bus options are shown on Figures 5-4 and 5-5. The freeway bus option (C1) would be similar to the metro rail option A1.

The freeway bus option would be diffi cult to justify, unless it was a substitute for a railway in the short to medium term. For the busway and LRT Connolly Drive options (B2, B3) the routes would generally be within a dedicated portion of the Connolly Drive reserve.

The west of Connolly Drive Options (C2, C3) are assumed to be located on an exclusive right of way with control of access.

Preliminary costs for busway options range from $18m (Freeway) to $17.5m (west of Connolly Drive (C2)).

The light rail options are of the order of $29m. The additional cost over buses is largely the need for track and control systems, but also the cost of rolling stock and maintenance and cleaning facilities for a transit mode that will be exclusive to this area.

The three rail alignment options are shown on Figures 5–1, 5–2 and 5–3. For each of the three metro rail options, three stations were proposed: at Butler, Jindalee (Brighton) and Alkimos. In three rail options, park and ride stations are proposed at Alkimos and Butler.


Figure 5-1: Option A1 + A2 Metro Rail and Bus alignment along FreewayFigure 5–1 Option A1 Metro Rail + A2 Bus on Freeway

= rail line and bus on freeway= station

Not to scale


Figure 5-2: Option B1 Connolly Drive alignment of Metro Rail Figure 5–2 Option B1 Connolly Drive Alignment of Metro Rail

not to scale

= rail line= station

= 800m radius catchment

Figure 5–2 Option B1 Metro Rail Alignment along Connolly Drive

not to scale


Figure 5-3: Option C1 Metro Rail alignment West of Connolly Drive

= rail line= station


Figure 5–3 Option C1 Metro Rail Alignment West of Connolly Drive

not to scale


Figure 5-4: Option B2 and B3 for Busway and Light Rail along Connolly Drive

= light rail or busway= possible future heavy rail


= heavy rail

not to scale

Figure 5–4 Option B2 and B3 for Busway and Light Rail along Connolly Drive


Figure 5-5: Option C2 and C3 Busway and Light Rail west of Connolly Drive

= light rail or busway= possible future heavy rail


= heavy rail

not to scale

Figure 5–5 Option C2 and C3 Busway and Light Rail West of Connolly Drive


APPENDIX 6: PREDICTED TRAFFIC FLOWS

Figure 6 Predicted Daily Traffi c Volumes for the Butler-Brighton Area

Line thicknesses are representative of future traffi c volume on that part of the networkFor indicative volumes refer to Section 10.4.1, Table 2.

Wanneroo Road

Freeway

Romeo Road

Connolly Drive

Marmion Avenue

Lukin Drive

Alkimos Drive

Jindalee Boulevard

N


APPENDIX 7: BETTER BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT BY DESIGN

Introduction

This appendix provides more detail of the nature of provision needed to cater for small and service sector business, and particularly to provide superior business settings in the study area.

The nature of small and service sector business premises

The mix of small business premises by business sector in Brighton is projected to be:

Property and Business Services 24%Health and Community services 7%Personal and Other Services 5%Finance and Insurance 2%Recreational and Cultural services 2%Retail 19%Cafes and Restaurants 7%Wholesale and Distribution 11%Transport and Storage 4%Manufacturing and Related Trades 9%Construction 8%

Based on this analysis, different types of small business space for the above range of activities will be in high demand. Providing this space in ‘Integrated Local Business Centres’ can concentrate activity; build business synergies; add value to developments and increase both investment and business profi tability.

It is important to provide affordable premises, with good exposure, that provide a credible address for small service-sector businesses. This is especially so for those providing personal services, and for offi ce-based small businesses unsuited to retail premises or unable to pay high rentals for a high-exposure retail site.

It is projected that 37% of local businesses will require offi ce space, in an offi ce setting. This space is best provided in stand alone, small scale, ‘walk-up’ offi ce premises, and preferably provided in ‘signature buildings’ at prominent locations, with strong street presence and high levels of passing traffi c. This will help to create a credible business address, generate business, create public awareness, provide stature and status to the occupants, and help them to be seen as credible organisations with which to do business. Examples of stand-alone walk-up offi ces are shown on Figure 7-1.

It is projected that 31% of local small businesses in the Brighton area will require retail and offi ce space with retail type frontage. These are likely to prefer lower priced mixed use premises, but some could locate in retail frontage space with high passing pedestrian trade, in local shopping centres - provided the space is affordable. Examples of mixed use, retail/commercial/residential developments are shown on Figure 7-2.

The remaining 32% of local small businesses require fl exible storage and industrial premises with some offi ce space. These are likely to prefer fl exible, single storey commercial/industrial buildings, or premises able to be easily converted between offi ce, industrial and storage uses with mezzanine offi ce/storage options, as shown on Figure 7-3.


Medical centres, childcare centres, gyms and health and fi tness centres need to be provided. These are preferably located in or adjacent to district centres to create more business opportunities, and generate trade during weekday evenings, at night and weekends.

Community centres; public libraries; lifelong education, coaching and conference centres; and music and tutorial rooms can perform a similar business support function by generating and concentrating activity during and outside normal business hours. Examples of build form are shown on Figure 7-4. Local Libraries and TAFEs can also stimulate trade, as shown on Figure 7-5. Beyond this, there is a need to provide opportunities for the location of highly visible showroom and retail warehouse space, ‘home-makers’ centres and hardware stores.

It is also necessary to provide prominent sites on highly traffi cked, ‘through routes’ for service stations and ‘fast food’ outlets. These can be integrated with each other - to minimise the loss of land by combining their site requirements. Fast food outlets can also be integrated into other business settings - refer Figure 7–6.

Suitable premises need to be provided for building and construction contractors, building trades and local services, vehicle services and tradespeople expected by a growing resident population. This includes a wide range of activities, from tyre fi tting and panel beating to mower repairs and picture framing. Examples of fl exible service trades developments are shown on Figure 7-7.

The full range of local business premises needs to be planned for and provided in the Brighton Study Area, and it is important that this is not just local shopping centres.

Enabling The ‘Grow Out’ of Home-Based Businesses

Home-based businesses account for over 6% of employment and rapid increases in their number, and their contribution to suburban employment, are expected.

It is projected that by ‘build out’ in 2016, 10% and 15% of dwellings will house a home-based business in Brighton and this proportion will grow to 15% of households by 2026.

It is vital to enable the ‘grow out’ of these home-based businesses. Between 10% and 20% of home-based businesses my eventually grow suffi ciently to move out into commercial premises. This would create local demand for between 18 and 26 small business premises per 1,000 dwellings.

The range of premises outlined above is able to meet this need (provided such premises are available locally in each suburb).

Suitable commercial space needs to be provided within four to fi ve kilometres of each residential area - where these businesses are fi rst being established. Otherwise, the employment able to be generated from incubating and growing home-based businesses with be stifl ed, and residential amenity problems will become unavoidable.

Poor quality space, cheap sheds in industrial areas, locations hidden behind shopping centres, and the upper fl oors above strip shops will not suffi ce, although there are some businesses that can be satisfactorily accommodated in this way.

Affordable premises, with good exposure, able to generate passing trade or provide a credible address should be provided for in each District Business Centre in the Brighton Study Area.

The opportunity should also be created for ‘small business incubator space’ to be provided in a good quality, affordable building in each of the major Brighton Business Centres.


Better Business from the Synergistic Location of Local Activity Generators

The location of parking, the nature of residences close to the town centres and the location of public facilities and activity attractors can have a signifi cant impact on the ability to provide business opportunities and generate employment.

For instance the careful location of car parking and minor activity attractors can create business opportunities from ‘impulse buying’ and meeting the needs of passing pedestrians. Thus the location of childcare centres, medical and health and fi tness centres can be used to generate passing pedestrians if well located and not designed to be entirely ‘drive-to’/ ‘drive-away’.

Activating the town centre early in the morning, during weekday evenings and at weekends can be critical to business profi tability and increasing local employment.

Education, tuition and indoor recreation can provide additional passing trade, if located adjacent to or above the local business centre, as well as providing an employment role in their own right.

Locating retirement villages and retirement housing with frontage to the main street or within convenient walking distance of the proposed town centres can also boost trade. This is especially, so early in the morning and at weekends. Particularly if close enough so that medical services, coffee shops and convenience items are accessed from the town centre, rather than being provided by a struggling business, or by voluntary arrangements, ‘on-site’.

Providing youth activities, community facilities and ‘lifelong learning’ centres can similarly increase trade – particular for weekday evenings, at night and weekends.

To maximise related business opportunities and ‘fl ow on’ employment, even minor activity generators need to be located within, or immediately adjacent to, the town centre.

Benefi ting Best from the Careful Location of Recreational Facilities

Capturing the ‘disposable income’ and ‘discretionary expenditure’ of local residents and visitors can increase the range of business opportunities; improve business viability, enhance profi tability, and lead to increased local employment.

The location of recreational attractions is particularly important, especially if they can be designed to attract more than local residents. Thus the location of skateboard parks, skateboard trails and activities like ballet schools can be particularly important considerations. Young people have no mortgages, little domestic expenditure and many today have considerable disposable income. (refer to Figure 8-9)

Business opportunities, business viability and profi tability, and employment creation can be enhanced from carefully locating these recreational attractions to concentrate activity and develop passing trade in the town centres. Thereby discretionary expenditure is captured from,participants, friends, or relations attracted to these facilities, and from parents who stay around rather than dropping off their children and immediately driving away.

Providing recreational facilities close to town centres also reduces loitering and anti-social behaviour that can detract from trade in local high street and shopping centres.


The Potential Employment Benefi ts from Carefully Locating Activity Generators

The combined effect on local employment from the careful location of facilities to capture these sources of expenditure are summarised in the following income and expenditure fl ow chart (Figure 8-10).

Providing just convenience goods and services for the local population will only generate 15% of the jobs required by the resident workforce. Carefully locating parking, community facilities and other activity attractors can capture disposable income by generating passing pedestrian trade. This can increase local job self-suffi ciency to 35%.

Introducing land uses that attract activities early in the mornings, during weekday evenings, at night and weekends can add to this impulse buying and business potential of the Centre. Incorporating an active recreation and visitor strategy can tap the discretionary expenditure of local residents and visitors from outside the region. In combination, all these initiatives have the potential to substantially increase business income and viability, and improve employment self-suffi ciency to over 45%.

Better Business from Integrated Business Centre Designs

Clearly, Brighton can exceed the job self-suffi ciency presently achieved by Joondalup by:

Tapping small business, service sector growth Creation of ‘superior business settings’ Developing Business Centres with a broad base of land uses Careful location of local activity generators Integrated Centre design to concentrate activity and create passing trade.

Opportunities for Investment and Employment Supportive Public/Private Partnerships

To develop truly successful centres will require the innovative combination of land uses and integration of public spaces and places. This will require public/private partnerships to provide and position facilities and develop public and private spaces and places. These need to be carefully located to create business opportunities and employment by attracting and concentrating activity and generating passing trade.

It will be necessary to ensure that development proceeds in an integrated way with particular parcels developed for agreed purposes, as is the case with new town centre or major shopping centre developments.

The question arises of how to ensure the durability of agreed centre designs and the land banking of sites for future business development when there are different property owners, potential investors and ‘end users’. Enabling appropriate temporary uses of the ‘land banked’ sites should be considered.

A combination of planning approvals, parking relaxations and non-revokable, ‘development leases’ may prove an effective mechanism.


Large scale, integrated layout, land use and facilities location plans need to be developed for the:

• Jindalee Integrated Business Centre• Butler Business Centre• Jindalee Beach Business Centre • Alkimos Integrated Regional Centre.

These need to incorporate the principles, land uses, space provision and co-location of synergistic activities and compatible land uses discussed here. Careful attention needs to be given to staging the development and release of commercial sites to ensure they meet market needs and yield the best return to the developers, investors and local businesses.

The required staging to meet changing demand, as the residential population increases, and to meet the different stages in business demand should be fully explored.

Developing appropriate ‘land banking’ arrangements, and identifi cation of suitable temporary land uses is also required.

‘Opportunity Prospectuses’ should be developed to promote and market each component of each Integrated Business Centre, and thereby help to generate the greatest investor and ‘end user’ interest and return to the landowner and developer.


Figure 7-1 ‘Stand-alone’ Walk-up Offi ces

Figure 7-2 Mixed-Use Retail/Commercial/Residential Develop-ments


Figure 7-3 Flexible Commercial/Industrial Developments

Figure 7-4 Health, Medical, Childcare and Fitness Centres

.


.

Figure 7-5 Local Libraries and TAFEs can stimulate trade

Figure 7-7 Flexible Service Trade Developments

Figure 7-6 Fast Food Integrated with Commercial Business Space


Figure 7-8 Small Business Incubator and ‘Grow Out’ Space (convertible to other uses)

Figure 7-9


Figure 7-10

Average weekly income* Age 10-11 $16.59 Age 12-13 $23.55 Age 14-15 $44.88 Age 16-17 $111.12 *Includes combination of pocket money, money earned for doing home chores, money earned outside the home, and money for essentials such as transport fares and lunches.

Figure 7-11

EFFECT

EFFECT


APPENDIX 8: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Active building frontage : an elevation of a building that contains human activity whether it be interactive as in, say, a shopfront, or whether it contains openings from habitable rooms

AHD : Australian Height Datum

Arterial routes : the urban grid of transport routes that ranges from freeways (up to 80,000 vpd) to district distributor integrators (down to 6,000 vpd)

Big box : a term for non street-based shopping centres. Big box shopping centres are characterised by a large structure with few windows, and surrounded on all sides by car parking.

CoW : City of Wanneroo

DDS : Discount Department Store

DEWCP : Department of Environment and Water Catchment Protection

DPI : Department for Planning and Infrastructure

DSP : District Structure Plan

EDC : Estates Development Company

gfa : Gross fl oor area

gla : Gross Leasable (Lettable) Area

Home-based business : a dwelling where the resident operates a business on the premises

Interconnected streets : a street system that possesses numerous intersections and junctions providing many alternative pedestrian and vehicle routes which disperse traffi c and offer direct access to destinations

JV : Joint Venture

Legibility : the ability of a street system to provide a sense of direction by giving clear signals in regard to the spatial layout and geography of an area

LRT : Light Rail Transit

LSP : Local Structure Plan

MfP : Ministry for Planning

Mixed Use : the compatible mixing of a range of appropriate land uses, integrated in close proximity to each other to improve the effi ciency and amenity of an area, reduce travel demand, increase walkability, and make more effi cient use of available space and buildings


MoH : Ministry of Housing

MRS : Metroplitan Region Scheme

MRWA : Main Roads Western Australia

MTS : Metropolitan Transport Strategy

nfa : net fl oor area

nla : net lettable area

nsa : net site area

Passive surveillance : the ability for the occupants of a building to look out of a window onto the street or other public place to monitor activity. As a result of knowing that someone may be watching them, people on the street (or any other public space) are more likely to feel safe and / or less likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour.

Pedshed : an area defi ned by a 400 metre (5 minute) or an 800 m (10 minute) walk from a neighbourhood or town centre

POS : Public Open Space

Shop-top housing : residential accommodation in the form of apartments constructed above commercial uses (often retail) on the ground fl oor

Sleeving : the process of constructing a veneer of buildings such as shops around a large, bulky building that does not rely on street frontage

Synergy : the interaction or co-operation between two or more agencies, etc., to produce a new or enhanced result as compared with their separate effects

UWPCA : Underground Water Protection Control Area

Vpd : vehicles per day

Walkable catchment : see ‘Pedshed’


APPENDIX 9: REFERENCES

Brighton Transit Alignment Options, Final , Sinclair Knight Merz, prepared for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, August 2001.

The Brighton Transit Patronage Forecasting Study, Sinclair Knight Merz, prepared for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, August 2001.

Liveable Neighbourhoods Edition 2, Policy for testing and review, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, June 2000.

Jindalee Enquiry-by-Design Workshop 12-16 August 1996, prepared for the Western Australian Planning Commission, Ministry for Planning, Taylor Burrell, Kinzie and Associates and Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd.

Facilitating Employment Growth: the urban planning contribution for Perth, prepared by Derek C. Kemp for the Western Australian Planning Commission, March 1998.

Austroads Guide to Traffi c Engineering Practice, part 5, ‘Intersections at Grade’, NAASRA, Sydney, 1988.


butler-brighton - wordpress.com · conjunction with the land developer’s or council’s appointed...

Documents