A Data-Driven Collaborative-Planning Approach for ...

A Data-Driven Collaborative-Planning Approach for Developing Sustainable Medium-Density Housing in Cities

*Ori Gudes, City Futures, University of New South Wales; Chris Pettit, City Futures, University of New South Wales; Stephen Glackin, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology; Alex Leith, Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRC-SI).

Keywords: Data-driven approaches; Geographic Information Systems (GIS); Collaborative planning; Medium density; Digital-planning tools. Abstract: Australia’s cities face significant social, economic and environmental challenges, driven by population growth and rapid urbanisation. The pressure to increase the availability of housing, including a move to a more compact urban form, will lead to greater levels of high-density and medium-density stock. This research is attentive to the lack of medium-density dwellings and associated planning instruments to support and encourage increased medium-density living. It utilises a data-driven collaborative-planning approach, where Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are employed in conjunction with local planners and the community to deliver a collaborative solution. In this paper, we focus on a case study undertaken in the City of Blacktown, Western Sydney. Importantly, this research offers a conceptual framework for future participatory-planning processes, though the actual community participation has not yet occurred. In practical terms, this research has several aims, including: identifying attractive urban-regeneration locations, exploring innovative ways to attract landowners to participate in neighbourhood (precinct) urban-regeneration planning, enhancing community-engagement and stakeholder-collaboration structures, and supporting statutory and local-government processes. This research contributes to the growing knowledge base in the following areas: identifying suitable areas for medium-density housing, highlighting the necessary governance processes required, establishing data-driven approaches and digital-planning tools that can inform and enhance existing planning processes, and seeking to develop and assist in the application of new planning processes in order to streamline medium-density development. This paper also discusses community-engagement approaches that can enable the codesign process, which complements the use of digital-planning tools.

1. Introduction Australia’s cities face significant pressures due to persistent urbanisation and population growth. One of the challenges arising from growing housing demand is the need to plan for both high- and mediumdensity living. Given these pressures, Australia’s cities are now challenged by a critical need for smarter frameworks, methods and analytical tools to assist planners to work more effectively with communities to instigate sustainable city development. This research focuses on a case study undertaken in the City of Blacktown, Western Sydney. It concerns the use and adoption of data-driven tools, such as Envision (Newton and Glackin, 2014) and Envision Scenario Planner (ESP) (Trubka et al., 2016), which have been developed and applied in the Australian and New Zealand contexts previously. The authors also discuss the use of the CityData Store (University of New South Wales (UNSW), 2017; Leao et al., 2017), which is a geospatial data store that supports data sharing between researchers, planners and potentially the Blacktown community. The CityData Store serves as a platform for the publication of open city data to the community and supports a distributed research environment. Practically, this research employs a data-driven collaborative-planning approach, where GIS data and digital-planning tools (DPTs) are employed to enhance a working partnership with local planners and the community. It is envisaged that the development of a conceptual-planning framework with the support of DPTs, such as Envision and ESP, will effectively connect planners, policy-makers, practitioners, researchers and communities to collectively plan more sustainable, productive and resilient urban futures.

2. Contextualising the program 2.1 Urbanisation pressures and challenges in Australia Australia’s urban population growth, combined with environmental challenges, have placed significant pressure on urban planning to supply housing while addressing policy issues such as sustainability, affordability and liveability (Glackin et al., 2016). Newton and Glackin (2014) argued that poor planning at precinct levels is responsible for the unsustainable nature of today’s cities. They believe changes in housing planning can mitigate carbon emissions up to 50 percent across Australian cities and identified four key areas where innovations are required: 1) identifying prospective locations for precinct redevelopment, 2) improving urban-design processes, 3) understanding present and future housing and locational preferences, and 4) establishing new pathways for achieving residential precinct regeneration (Newton and Glackin, 2014). The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute’s Greyfields Project, undertaken by Newton et al. (2011), canvassed input from over 70 leading academics and practitioners involved in city development in relation to the challenge of regenerating the established suburbs of Australia’s major cities. Newton et al. (2011) attempted to articulate a new model for regeneration of the Greyfield residential precinct. They found that much of the innovation needed was organisational, institutional and social in nature, supported by some technological innovations. A transformational change is required if liveable and sustainable built environments are to be realised, particularly for fastgrowing urban populations (Newton and Glackin, 2014). In the context of Australia, we are expecting our capital cities to continue to grow, with both Sydney and Melbourne likely to increase from nearly five to eight million people and Perth from 2.1 million to 3.5 million by 2056, based on the Directions 2031 and Beyond Report (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010). Recent high population growth rates in Australia’s large cities appear set to continue, according to current Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2012) forecasts and metropolitan strategic plans. Whilst these statistics are by themselves striking, the implications of these demographic changes are far-reaching and present major challenges. The projected high population growth rates in Australia’s cities indicates that more needs to be done to unlock the regeneration potential of the established suburbs: higher residential yield and a greater range of dwelling types serviced by nextgeneration energy, water and transport infrastructures. There are also significant gaps in our knowledge about how metropolitan housing markets and the property development industry in Australia are meeting the needs and preferences of urban residents. The housing supply and locational needs of the different age cohorts that will make up this mid-century projected population, as well as those in the intervening years, remains unclear. In fact, this has become the object of speculation by those who suggest it will be driven by those forming new households; the inference being that apartments and medium density will not be the most preferred choices for families (Birrell et al., 2005). However, this seems to ignore the influence that new (couples-only or singleperson) households and an ageing baby-boomer population may have on the housing market. Studies by Olsberg and Winters (2005) have found that between 25 and 35 per cent of older people who were likely to move provided reasons related to size and quality/maintenance of their homes as motives. The vacancy chains created by boomers moving out of their (predominantly) detached housing could make a significant contribution to freeing up stock for families as well as group households, and could also impact affordability. New South Wales (NSW) needs more housing to meet the demands of a growing population. It is projected that every year the population growth will be more than 100,000 until 2036 (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2016). The main two types of housing in NSW are free-standing homes and strata-titled apartments; low-rise, medium-sized houses are missing. This gap is referred to as the “Missing Middle”. It is expected that by 2036 the number of people aged over 60 years will increase by 56 per cent and people aged between 0–19 will increase by 24 percent. Therefore, it is important to act strategically so that older people, families, singles and young couples have greater choice when it comes to housing. NSW is now subject to new draft Medium-Density Design Guidelines and a Medium-Density Housing Code to inform the design and delivery of low-rise medium-density housing in neighbourhoods across the State. The guidelines received strong support to help better design outcomes for mediumdensity housing. This attempt to supply high-quality medium-density housing is likely to increase the variety of available housing types, which will subsequently offer more choice for the changing population (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2016). It is, therefore, critical to develop smarter frameworks, methods and tools to assist planners to work more effectively with communities and other key stakeholders.

2.2 Realising the Compact City through medium-density development Some believe that medium density is part of the general solution to growing urban pressures (Newman in Judd and Dean, 1983), while others identify the process of development, effective management systems and practical house types as critical factors. Medium-density housing has been recognised as a form of housing with definitive characteristics, and offered as an alternative residential form to lowdensity suburban development. According to the (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2016) report, increasing population growth and changes in demography and lifestyle choices are creating demand for more affordable and diverse housing options. One of the solutions for meeting this demand is to increase the supply and quality of low-rise medium-density housing. Even though traditional freestanding homes and apartments are in demand, they do not fulfil the need for a greater variety of housing. Medium-density housing includes: townhouses and terraces, dual occupancies (two homes on one block of land) and manor homes (small low-rise residential buildings containing three to four homes). These diverse housing options are ideal for older people, families with children, people living alone and couples who require more housing choices (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2017). Medium-density is also supported by industry. For example, the Property Council supports the MediumDensity Housing Code, outlined in The Department of Planning and Environment’s Draft MediumDensity Design Guide, as a way of contributing to a faster supply of diverse housing stock (Property Council of Australia, 2017). In the context of this current case study, the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988 defines mediumdensity housing as villas, townhouses and cluster housing. It does not include dual occupancy, integrated housing or any other form of housing. The provisions of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan (LEP) include zone objectives to act as a guide regarding Council’s approach to medium-density housing and its permissibility in the residential zones. The Council has not set any specific site-density requirement for medium-density housing. However, considering housing affordability in the context of Australia, medium-density dwellings offer great potential. In fact, medium-density housing is now a common form of urban housing in Australia. The importance of medium-density housing in this context is also reflected in the Medium-Density Design Guide Report (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2016) and Greater Sydney Commission’s Draft District Plan Report (Greater Sydney Commission, n.d.).

2.3 Digital-planning tools (DPTs) In addressing the myriad of challenges facing our cities, there is a need for greater data-driven approaches to support planners and policy-makers. Such data-driven approaches can range from simple analytics to more complex urban modelling and simulation efforts. Easy-to-use dashboards and interactive tools and visualisations, such as CityViz (Goodspeed et al., In press), provide planners and the community with access to data and insights in new and engaging ways. In this context, DPTs (also referred to as planning-support systems in the literature) can provide a significant contribution to the armoury of tools and techniques required to support planners to both envision and realise smarter and more resilient urban futures (Geertman et al., 2017). DPTs are computer-based tools that add value to the planner’s work processes and include systems such as spread sheets, desktop GIS and web-based GIS visualisation and analysis platforms (Couclelis, 2005). Newton and Glackin (2014) established a suite of GIS-based DPTs, including Envision and Envision Scenario Planner (ESP). Envision and ESP were developed to assist urban planners, decision makers, and other end users to plan for precinct-scale redevelopment in Greyfield residential areas as a means to revitalising neighbourhoods and optimising infill housing (Glackin et al., 2016). We are currently seeing the maturing of DPTs as useful instruments in day-to-day urban planning, where the focus has previously been on technology development for planning-support science (Geertman, 2013). DPTs provide the opportunity to support better planning and urban management and added value and integration capabilities that suit the use of sophisticated tools, which is critically important to achieving sustainable, productive and resilient urban landscapes. The DPTs used in this research are the Envision and ESP tools, supported through the use of standard GIS software and the CityData Store. Envision is a web-based application that is used to indicate where capacity for future neighbourhood change is greatest (Newton and Glackin, 2013). Envision has three core tools:

1. Multi-criteria evaluation, which uses statistics at a statistical area level one scale to identify lots that meet user-defined criteria, such as count of housing types or population by age; 2. Redevelopment potential, which allows the user to define parameters such as ‘distance from major roads’ or ‘distance to train station’ and will identify lots that meet these parameters in addition to including or excluding properties that have constraints such as ‘environmental management’ or ‘heritage’; 3. Viability assessment, which will give a simple summary of the potential redevelopment of a userdefined precinct, including variables such as housing typology and quality. Envision can provide the basis for creating a framework for municipal governments designating future development scenarios for more intensified levels of neighbourhood change and regeneration. Envision helps to address the debate on the potential areas for strategic infill, to identify specific land parcels that have a considerable probability or potential of being redeveloped or subdivided in the near future, and to assess the economic viability of proposed redevelopment scenarios. It enables a data-driven and less subjective method of identifying precincts that have potential for redevelopment. ESP is a web-based system for precinct design, visualisation and assessment, for which specifications were determined by conducting workshops with stakeholders, industry experts and potential end users in Western Australia and Victoria (Pettit et al., 2014; Trubka et al., 2016). Basic requirements for the system included the positioning and visualisation of three-dimensional models of representative dwelling typologies and an assessment framework and logic for generating feedback on a series of sustainability indicators. ESP is currently being redeveloped, and ESPv2 should be available for application in Blacktown by November 2017. These two tools are complemented by the CityData Store (Leao et al., 2017), which is a geospatial data store that supports data sharing between researchers and planners in the City of Blacktown.

3. Methodological approach This study aligns with the structural-functional concepts and approaches suggested by Potts et al. (2016). This approach can underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice and may provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements (e.g. uncoordinated development in Blacktown). Working with all stakeholders in a topdown and bottom-up method simultaneously may provide many benefits. Participatory action research (PAR) methods can offer a way to implement this in practice. PAR is increasingly being applied in the context of dealing with city-planning problems as it puts the researcher in the position of co-learner, and places a strong emphasis on input from participants or endusers and the on-going translation of findings into action (Minkler, 2000). One of the most important characteristics of PAR is the fact that participants whose lives are affected by the research initiative take an active role in its design. In this regard, Israel et al. (2001) define PAR as adhering to the following principles: •

Participatory;

•

Engaging community members and researchers in a joint process in which both contribute equally;

•

A co-learning process for researchers and community members;

•

A method for systems development and local community capacity building;

•

An empowering process through which participants can increase control over their lives, nurturing community strengths and problem-solving abilities; and

•

A way to balance research and action.

PAR has many advantages in the context of collaborative planning, including its ground-up approach driven by the end-users rather than a top-down approach led by experts, which is strongly advocated by urban planners such Healey (1997; 2003). The literature reveals that, through consultation meetings and workshops, many communities have effectively incorporated a high level of community participation (Minkler, 2000; Stern, Gudes and Svoray, 2009). The PAR process also offers an important method to support the dissemination and analysis of information by decision-makers, predominantly as part of a broader conceptual framework. In addition, the literature review emphasises that one of the key requirements of a collaboration-based system is the flexibility it provides to adapt to users’ needs, thereby increasing the efficiency of planning tools and planning processes. Thus, the PAR approach— supplemented with the application of DPTs including GIS, Envision and ESP—forms the foundation of

our case-study work in the city of Blacktown. As outlined in Figure 1, our data-driven collaborativeplanning approach has three tiers.

Figure 1. Data-driven collaborative planning approach

Tier 1 describes the DPTs used in our study. Envision is a Scenario Planning Tool (SPT) that was used by Glackin et al. (2016). It provides end-users a way of investigating and analysing redevelopment potential and this research represents its first application and adaption within the Sydney context. Extensive GIS data collection has taken place to import data into Envision. The system includes a MultiCriteria Evaluation (MCE) tool to create and map composite indexes of census demographic data, a query tool for identifying re-developable properties based on a range of property and distance-based indicators, and a viability tool for assessing the financial return of various redevelopment options. It also enables users to download data for use in their local GIS environment. For the purpose of this research, Envision is also complimented by another tool—ESP. ESP is a webbased system for sketch planning redevelopment options for an identified renewal precinct and has previously been applied in the Australian context by Glackin et al. (2015) and Trubka (2017). ESP is like a virtual neighbourhood in 3D that can produce reports providing users with feedback on over 300 key performance indicators (KPIs), including embodied and operating carbon, operating energy, water demand, capital and operating costs, transport and a suite of planning metrics. More information about these DPTs is available here: http://www.greyfieldplanning.com.au/. The new tool that has been developed in this study is called CityData Store (see https://citydata.be.unsw.edu.au) (Leao et al., 2017). It is a data repository that supports the discovery, storage and retrieval of spatial and non-spatial digital artefacts, such as spread sheets and documents. The hosted data include supporting metadata, which helps to maintain data providence. The CityData Store also has the ability to share data as a web service via Web Feature Service (WFS) and Web Mapping Service (WFS) data standards. There is role-based security so project data can be defined as private and not shared if it is sensitive or, otherwise, be made completely open for the community to view and comment on. In our study, only certain individuals were given permission to view, download,

edit and manage the project GIS data (see also Figure 2). The CityData Store assisted in overcoming problems of finding and identifying the right version of spatial data and provided a spatial data infrastructure to manage, and share data with key stakeholders. Importantly, it could also feed directly into other DPTs, such as Envision and ESP. Tier two lists the different participants and organisations involved in our study who affect or affected by the use of the DPTs. Tier three describes the project workflow associated with the research. This includes a series of consultation meeting and workshops with both the State Government Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Department of Planning and Environment at the City of Blacktown and, ultimately, engagement with the community. The green arrows in the framework (within Figure 1) represent where the project is in terms of its progress. Green arrows represent activities that have already been undertaken, while the white arrows represent activities that are yet to be undertaken. Actions that have been undertaken include: 

A series of engagement activities across all levels of government to identify issues and challenges in the context of the case study. In addition, we have involved stakeholders in identifying potential criteria for the multi-criteria evaluation component;



Extensive GIS data-collection efforts and integration of these data with a cadastral dataset for use in Envision;



Property-level MCE, including selecting decision criteria, applying suitable weightings to each criterion, and then running and displaying the results to the local government. So far, an example scenario has been run for demonstration purposes and included the following three criteria: SEIFA index of socio-economic disadvantage and advantage (used as a negative, to highlight areas of disadvantage) (ABS, 2013), the number of people aged between 55 and 74 and the number of people aged 75 and over. Weightings of these criteria are arbitrary, as this example was used to highlight areas that are disadvantaged and have a relatively high number of older people, which could be areas that are suitable for redevelopment. Later scenarios will be developed in conjunction with stakeholders, so that criteria that are used are relevant to the local situation.



A property-level Redevelopment Potential scenario was run, which aims to identify lots that are suitable for redevelopment. These were identified with the following criteria: between 200 and 1500 m2, distance to main road is greater than 200 m, distance to train station is less than 1500 m. These values were only used for demonstration purposes; future workshops will identify more appropriate figures for the local situation. Once the Redevelopment Potential scenario has been run, a precinct can be selected and lots exported to be used in ESP, which is a precinct-level redevelopment scenario planning tool. ESP is under current development too, and so has not yet been utilised.

Figure 2. CityData Store configured to support the City of Blacktown stakeholder group

4. Preliminary results and discussion Despite the fact that our study is still in its early stages, a novel data-driven collaborative planning approach has been proposed. In subsequent research, this will be fully implemented and evaluated. However, based on our initial findings (developed from reflections on our engagement activities at both the State and local-government levels over the past six months), this study found that a clear identification of key criteria for areas for amalgamation is required. This is important given the fact that council land acquisition does not seem to be a viable option because of the lack of community support. To make it a viable option, it is necessary to provide some guidance to landowners and incentivise voluntary participation. In addition, this can feed into the debate of what should be included in future master plans for the Compact City Urban Renewal Project. Some preliminary findings that were reflected in our engagement activities to date include: • • • • •

Community engagement works best if there are local issues that need to be addressed, which are considered a priority by residents; DPTs could be useful, but only if they are simple and easily modifiable; Re-zoning remains a challenging issue moving forward; Concessions (i.e. incentives for developers) for pilot precincts in Blacktown may need to be identified; and More support in terms of the ‘urban design’ or design package needs to be identified and subsequently provided.

Figure 3 presents the four domains in which the study identified areas for potential improvement to promote the planning process of developing sustainable, medium-density housing in the City of Blacktown.

Figure 3 Areas of potential improvement to promote the planning process of sustainable medium-density housing in Blacktown

Current strategic planning and policies Digital-Planning Tools

Community engagment

Reform or innovative policies

It is also important to consider the limitations of this study. In particular, the project is only in its early stages and the preliminary findings reported in this paper relate to initial engagement activities with the Council only. They do not yet include community engagement, which will occur in the subsequent phase of the project. Thus, it is anticipated that further challenges will be uncovered as the project evolves. Regardless of this limitation, this study provides an important contribution, as our novel data-driven collaborative-planning approach could be helpful in providing both academic and practical guidance to future similar projects. Some recommendations for future research and potential areas of contribution can be drawn from the initial findings of this study. In particular, more evidence is required in the following areas: • • • • •

Understanding the practical strengths and limitations of applying the suite of DPTs in Sydney; Developing a better understanding of the key criteria for re-zoning (e.g. identified precincts for redevelopment) in the context of Sydney; Considering additional possible incentives (e.g. land trade donated by council to have open space incorporated into the site, or allowing double the height if developments are undertaken as a group); Exploring the viability of design competitions as a tool for community engagement; Providing further guidance about access to open-space and adaptive transportation models for different scenarios and population projections.

Although this study is in its early days, it is anticipated that it will address some of these recommended research areas in the future, thereby further contributing to the overall knowledge base. Further research to improve these identified areas will provide important insights to policy and planners for improving the planning process of developing sustainable medium-density housing in the Sydney Metropolitan area.

5. Conclusion There is a need for new planning instruments, conceptual frameworks or planning models that can arm the next generation of planners with the ability to tackle global challenges head on and endeavour to make cities more sustainable, productive and resilient. It is, therefore, timely that we see the maturing of DPTs where the focus has previously been on technology development to the evolution of planning-

support science (Geertman, 2013; Geertman et al., 2017). In this paper, we have presented a novel data-driven participatory-planning approach, which has a suite of DPTs as its centrepiece. This resurgence of such urban modelling and visualisation tools in the context of city planning is made possible through increased access to data. In an era of open data, city data is increasingly being made available to planners and the urban-research community through government open platforms and eresearch infrastructure, such as the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN) (AURIN, n.d.; Sinnott et al., 2014; Pettit et al., 2015). However, the real challenge is how the community will react to and interact with this new suite of DPTs as we continue to plan for sustainable, productive and resilient urban futures.

6. References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2013. Socio-economic indexes for areas [online]. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa [Accessed July 2017]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2012. Yearbook Australia 2012, cat. no. 1301.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics AURIN. n.d. Envision: the Greyfield Precinct identification e-tool [online]. Available from: https://aurin.org.au/Envision, ESP [Accessed July 2017]. Birrell, B., O’Connor, K., Rapson, V. and Healy, E. 2005. Melbourne 2030: Planning rhetoric versus urban reality. Melbourne: Monash University e-Press. University

of

New

South

Wales

(UNSW).

2017.

https://citydata.be.unsw.edu.au [Accessed July 2017].

CityData

[online].

Available

from:

Couclelis, H. 2005. Where has the future gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37(8), 1353–1371. Geertman, S. 2013. Planning support: from systems to science. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 166(1), 50–59. Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C. and Stillwell, J. 2017. Introduction. In: Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C. and Stillwell, J., eds. Planning Support Science for Smarter Urban Futures. Utrecht: Springer International Publishing, 1–19. Glackin, S., Trubka, R. and Dionisio, M.R. 2016. A software-aided workflow for precinct-scale residential redevelopment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 60, 1–15. Goodspeed, R., Pelzer, P. and Pettit, C. In press. Planning our future cities: the role computer technologies can play. In: Sanchez, T.W., ed. Urban Planning Knowledge and Research. Routledge. Greater Sydney Commission. n.d. District plans https://www.greater.sydney/district-plans [Accessed July 2017].

[online].

Available

from:

Greyfield Planning. 2016. Spatial Planning Tools for Revitalising Australian and New Zealand middle suburbs [online]. Available from: http://www.greyfieldplanning.com.au [Accessed July 2017]. Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press. Healey, P. 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. P., & Becker, A. B. (2001). Community-based participatory research: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Education for Health, 14(2), 182-197. Judd, B. and Dean, J. 1983. Medium density housing in Australia. Canberra: Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division. Leao, S.Z., Lieske, S.N., Conrow, L., Doig, J., Mann, V. and Pettit, C.J. 2017. Building a nationallongitudinal geospatial bicycling data collection from crowdsourcing. Urban Science, 1(3), 23, doi:10.3390/urbansci1030023. Minkler, M. (2000). Using participatory action research to build healthy communities. Public Health Reports, 115(2-3), 191. Newton, P. and Glackin, S. 2013. Using geo-spatial technologies as stakeholder engagement tools in urban planning and development, Built Environment, 39(4), 480–508.

Newton, P. and Glackin, S. 2014. Understanding infill: towards new policy and practice for urban regeneration in the established suburbs of Australia’s cities’. Urban Policy and Research (ahead-ofprint), 1–23. Newton, P., Murray, S., Wakefield, R., Murphy, C., Khor, L.A. and Morgan, T. 2011. Towards a new development model for housing regeneration in Greyfield Residential Precincts, Final Report 171. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. NSW Department of Planning and Environment. 2016. Medium-density design guide report [online]. Available from: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Manuals-and-guides/draft-mediumdensity-design-guide-2016-10.ashx [Accessed July 2017]. Olsberg, D. and Winters, M. 2005. Ageing in Place, Final Report 88. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Pettit, C., Glackin, S., Trubka, R., Ngo, T., Lade, O., Newton, P. and Newman, P. 2014. A rapid prototyping approach for building a 3D volumetric precinct urban planning tool. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, (2), 47–53. Pettit, C.J., Barton, J., Goldie, X., Sinnott, R., Stimson, R. and Kvan, T. 2015. The Australian Urban Intelligence Network supporting Smart Cities. In: Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., Ferreira, J. and Goodspeed, J., eds. Planning support systems and Smart Cities, Lecture Notes in geoinformation and cartography. Heidelberg: Springer, 243–259. Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A. and Sipe, N. 2016. Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems. Planning Theory. 15(2), 162–189. Property Council of Australia. 2017. Submission to the Greater Sydney Commission Draft West Central https://gsc-public-1.s3-ap-southeastDistrict Plan Submission [online]. Available from: 2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/submissions/PCA(WestCentralDistrict)_Open_Submission.pdf [Accessed July 2017]. Sinnott, R.O., Bayliss, C., Bromage, A., Galang, G., Grazioli, G., Greenwood, P., Macauley, A., Morandini, L., Nogoorani, G., Nino-Ruiz, M., Tomko, M., Pettit, C.J., Sarwar, M., Stimson, R., Voorsluys, W. and Widjaja, I. 2014. The Australia urban research gateway. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 27(2), 358–375. Stern, E., Gudes, O., & Svoray, T. (2009). Web-Based Traditional Public Participation Comprehensive Planning: A Comparative Study. Environment and Planning B, 36 ,113-134. Trubka, R., Glackin, S., Lade, O. and Pettit, C.J. 2016. A web-based 3D visualisation and assessment system for urban precinct scenario modelling. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 117, 175–186. Western Australian Planning Commission. 2010. Directions 2031 and beyond: metropolitan planning beyond the horizon [online]. Available from: https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/plan_directions2031_Part1.pdf [Accessed July 2017].

7. Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge the funding and commitment to this research from the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, The New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, and Blacktown City Council. 8. Disclaimer Any opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the CRCLCL or its partners, agents or employees. The CRCLCL gives no warranty or assurance, and makes no representation as to the accuracy or reliability of any information or advice contained in this document, or that it is suitable for any intended use. The CRCLCL, its partners, agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability for any errors or omissions or in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.