Your Development

The property development and construction industries in Australia have developed apace to cater for the burgeoning demand for new homes, building on large peri-urban subdivisions and greenfields sites.  The sameness of many of these developments is reminiscent of the housing estates that appeared in England in the last century populating the cities and larger towns, though the emphasis in Australia is on home ownership and not social housing. However, unlike the English style of living close to the street, we lock ourselves into our castles and our front gardens have become garages.

Many greenfields developments, whilst marketed as “uniquely” something such as “coastal” or “green”, are in truth fundamentally similar with high perimeter walls, entrance statements suggesting exclusivity and names which allude to a lifestyle from another place and time. State planning protocol and local government guidelines and approvals regimes dictate the skeleton of the development – maximum house size on lot sizes, public open space requirements -  but building and landscape uniformity and, until recently, the preservation of pre-existing natural histories were decisions made by designers and developers.

As Timothy Beatley’s book Native to Nowhere (2004) implies, in these stereotypical developments we are “native to nowhere” – we could be anywhere - and the monotone designs often bear little relation to the local environment, local history or even the country where they are placed – what some refer to as a ‘cookie cutter’ development model (V. Allan 2007: personal communication). 

This fact sheet examines the following issues using a case study of various aspects of the Ellenbrook development in Western Australia. This development has won several prestigious awards for its design and community engagement processes and serves as a role model for greenfield development projects in Australia.

• Developing a sense of place
• Welcoming community input into initial planning stages
• Collaborations between planning authorities, developers and communities
• Incorporating community focused design to encourage personal connection and permeability of the streetscape through sustainable health and environmental assessments at the project design stage
• Designing developments that consider whole of life stages and particular needs across this spectrum
• Incorporation of mixed use areas which will generate small business ventures and local employment
• Working alongside the community (both established and new owners) to implement social development and cultural organisations.

Developing a sense of place

Kathryn Heymann (2007) in her essay “In search of the Inner Eden” suggests that early migrants to Australia tried to recreate the spaces they had left behind in an alien landscape to counteract the fear of finding themselves in a totally different and at times inhospitable environment;  thus, the recreation of European style buildings in our cities and major towns in times past and now the replication of suburban California bungalows and Australianised Tuscan villas in new developments. Interestingly the footprints of these new suburban palaces can take up the whole block with little space for play or outdoor recreation – are these houses a symbol of our success or a security net against the outside environment?

The notion of community rests on a willingness to share while it could be argued that the design of our homes is based on security and protection – with front walls, security screens and blue light alarm boxes.  While this feeling of fear and the distancing of the other is replicated– through promoting exclusivity and a plethora of security systems - we are in danger of becoming too frightened to take the step out of our front doors and joining or creating a sustainable community (Caluya, 2007).

In today’s society where most people work outside the home and at a distance from their urban fringe housing estate, it is easy to drive into the garage, walk into the house and lock the world out after a hard day.  A day time visitor to the area sees rows of empty houses – empty of dual earning couples and life – curtains drawn and security alarms on. Alternatively, these secured castles can become prisons for the many women who look after young families in mortgage belt developments with little public transport and whose partner has taken the family car to work. These ‘dormitory’ settlements must be carefully designed to ensure they don’t live up to their label – just a place to sleep.

Making a house a home is a gradual process of imposing the homeowner’s personality and individuality through decoration and furnishing and through the feeling of ownership and connection that this engenders in the occupants.  But as Sydney designer Marian Bracken suggests:

"Happiness is at least partly about how you inhabit space with other people. My concern is that the direction of domestic housing design—the increase in making separate space, parents retreats, extra bathrooms—has certain side effects, to do with not engaging with other members of the household. If you're a guest in a house and you're in a retreat space, with a separate bathroom, you never have to take part in the life of the house. Architectural photography is about an idealized version of a living space which is empty of life. When people reproduce those spaces… they feel that they are creating a space which reflects their identity but in fact it's a constructed individuality." (Heymann, 2007)

Bracken considers the house as a public space as well as a private one:

"A house should be a celebration of its place publicly: how the occupants relate to each other; how the house relates to the space next door; to the street; to the environment." (Heymann, 2007)

This concept of relating to the local environment and to the surrounding neighbourhood is vital to the creation of a communal sense of place. 

Making a place a community is dependent on the relationships that the people develop with their neighbours and the sense of ownership and commitment that trickles through to a shared caring for their surroundings. Achieving a sense of place  in a new development and the many benefits it brings to a community requires careful attention initially to the built environment, with an emphasis on house placement and neighbourhood design, the provision of local meeting places and mixed use local employment opportunities, but also, crucially, to the presence of place makers  or what Burton (2003) calls ‘social entrepreneurs’ – those valuable residents within any community who take responsibility for encouraging people to talk to each other - chatting over the side/front fence - which develops into a shared caring for each other and the environment that they live in.

“Place, at all scales from the armchair to the nation is a construct of experience; it is sustained not only by timber, concrete and highways, but also by the quality of human awareness” (Tuan 1975).

In summary, a sense of place is not created by building design alone and the reality of communities is that they are very different from the one size fits all notion of the theoretical ideal.  It has become best practice in Western Australia to engage with and include community stakeholders in planning for new developments at the very early stages as evidenced by the successful Ellenbook development in Western Australia.  Ellenbrook is a master planned greenfields development undertaken as a joint venture between the WA Department of Housing and the developer, LWP Property Group, in the City of Swan.  It is situated approximately 25 kilometres north east of the City of Perth and has been designated a Regional Centre in the Metropolitan Region Scheme.  Initial planning for the 15 year joint venture commenced in 1991 and has had a strong community engagement focus from day one. Built in stages (villages), it is estimated that the final population will be about 30,000.

Back to top

Make a comment

Welcoming community input into initial planning stages

There is much international literature on regeneration and the involvement of the community in the planning process (Burton, 2003 and Burton et al, 2004). This is a useful source of information when considering community participation in various planning stages for a new greenfields development. Even before the first house is sold, there are local stakeholders, nearby residents, local government and service providers who represent community interests and who can play a role in the planning stages.

The WA Planning Commission (WAPC) details five key principles for the sustainable use and development of land in its State Planning Framework Policy 4 (WAPC, 2006).  With regard to community, it states:

“Planning should recognise the need for and, as far as practicable, contribute towards more sustainable communities by: providing effective systems of community consultation at appropriate stages in the planning and development process (clause vi)”

There is some history of public opposition to new developments in Western Australia, particularly those that are in high profile positions such as Leighton Beach and the recent South Beach/Coogee development or where areas of native bush are to be destroyed prior to development (Hepburn Heights). These examples and the literature highlight the necessity of inviting early public involvement at the planning stages, rather than the more combative process of presenting complete plans for approval and waiting for the regulatory community consultation phase to gauge public opinion (see for example, Ruane, S. 2004)

The development of an ethos of community is hard work and intangible in that one person’s interpretation of what their community is can differ markedly from another and levels of willingness and reasons to participate are widely variable.  While community participation has become a mantra for policy makers and planners in recent times, and rightly so (Paulin, 2006), it is also extraordinarily difficult to quantify the value of these processes in money terms, apart from the actual cost of the consultation process. Outcomes can not always be measured to prove that community participation made a positive difference to the planning process, rather the ownership that results from participating in well designed processes may multiply well after the process is complete for those who took part (Burton et al, 2004).

Thus, there is a need for thorough and ongoing examination of the desired outcome of any relationship with the community and identification of the best process to achieve these before any participation process is implemented.  The IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum  and related Toolbox provide a blueprint for planning and selecting community participation processes and ongoing evaluation of such processes from the beginning planning stages through to the ‘outcome’ stage is vital.  While ‘sense of place’ is often an intangible perception and not immediately quantifiable, it can be assessed through looking at changes in perception over time of residents and local community members.  For example, the City of Camden in NSW has developed a Sustainable Camden project which incorporates the community’s vision for their area and indicators of community health and wellbeing measured over time. 

Back to top

Make a comment

Collaboration between planning authorities, developers and communities

In Western Australia, determining approval for new subdivisions is the role of the state planning commission (WAPC).  Local Government does not have a regulatory presence in this process but they can express an opinion and are required to maintain the hard infrastructure, landscaping etc that forms part of any development, to cater for the local service needs of the eventual new community and approve individual building plans.

In 2003, the WA Department of Premier and Cabinet released Better planning, better services: A strategic planning framework for the Western Australian Public Sector and the groundbreaking Hope for the future: The Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy.  Both these documents premised the need for more community involvement in public decision making across government.  The Department of Planning and Infrastructure developed the Dialogue for the City project which involved large numbers of stakeholders and community members in devising the future plan for Perth.  The outcomes of this process were consequently distilled into the Network City Plan, released in 2004. (See Hartz-Karp and Newman (2006) for a more detailed description of the Dialogue process).

The Network City: Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel – outlines a change in direction for Perth, not only in how the city develops, but also in how planning is done.  Network City combines the principles of New Urbanism with the use of deliberative forums to invite community input and develop solutions which represent best practice in both design and community development. The strategy encourages higher density living around public transport nodes, walkable neighbourhoods and local employment and community facilities. The concept of higher density living in particular is becoming more commonplace in inner city and coastal developments, but may be contentious in new greenfields developments given the connotations of living the ‘Australian dream’.  Careful design and stakeholder engagement will be necessary to ensure a more complete place development.

---

Case Study – Ellenbrook Community Board

As part of the community development plan for Ellenbrook, a sum of approximately $300 from each new block sold was allocated by the developer to provision of community infrastructure and facilities, with additional  contributions from local government and other agencies.  From the initiation of the Ellenbrook development plan in 1991, a ‘community board’ was set up as a consultative committee and to make decisions on how these community reserve funds are spent. The board meets bi-monthly and comprises representatives from the Ellenbrook community, the City of Swan and the LWP Property Group (the developer).

The availability of these funds and in kind contributions was instrumental in gaining government funding for the Salvation Army Recreation Centre – a large active recreation space for the Ellenbrook community.

---

Case Study – Place Planning

The City of Swan instituted Place Planning of the various districts in their local government boundaries in 2003. The Ellenbrook/Vines/Egerton (Vale) Place Plan was the pilot for this project which utilised community and stakeholder engagement to develop a picture of the place that is Ellenbrook and to identify challenges and successes in this new community. 

“Place planning involves seeing things from the point of view of the community at the Place level. It is an approach that shifts the focus of the City organisation from outputs of a function to that of outcomes in the Place. Therefore place planning is based on stakeholder involvement to ensure an integrated approach ….Place planning can be defined as a pro-active process of integrating social, environmental, physical and economic planning” (City of Swan, 2004).

The Ellenbrook community identified several issues such as improved public transport, access to local medical services and support for youth programmes which the developer and the local government subsequently worked together to address.

Back to top

Make a comment

Incorporating community focused design

Healthy communities develop around caring for and creating attachment to shared spaces and it is vital that housing and development design reflect the need for people to socialise and for casual living and meeting on the street to occur.  In addition, designing sustainable new communities will require a holistic focus on areas such as health, public transport, social justice, and education provision at the early planning stages.

Through designing a variety of housing options in each village development, Ellenbrook has achieved a varied social demographic in both age and economic background.  Cottage lots which are close to village facilities, in the inner circle of development, are designed with smaller width ratios and rear garaging off of laneways. These cottages face directly onto the street and are serviced by footpaths which encourage walking and opportunities to converse with passers-by.  Laneways have been carefully designed to ensure line of sight and passive surveillance.

See “Public health consultation: a guide for developers” which provides a consultation framework for consulting communities in planning new greenfields development, which could be tailored to consult in additional areas of stakeholder interest.

---

Snap Shot Case Study – Ellenbrook – early provision of parks and paths

Along with other community facilities, parks were planned and constructed at the beginning of the development process for each village at Ellenbrook so that new homeowners have a focus for their future community.  Given that the most popular form of exercise in Ellenbrook is walking and cycling, dual use paths have been constructed around the whole development, which afford exercise options as well as easy access to sports, retail and other facilities.

Small local parks with seats to sit in shady spots, childrens’ playgrounds and larger active recreation areas are all vital components in encouraging outdoor recreation.  Well placed shady seating can provide places for friends to chat, to savour the fresh air and to enjoy a natural setting.  Provision of usable open spaces can help to promote physical activity. These spaces should be varied and provide smaller scale activity areas for children (ie mini goal posts to kick balls), playgrounds and separate passive recreation areas with suitable shade trees and passive surveillance from surrounding homes. 

---

Case Study – Bungendore Health Impact Assessment

Following on this theme, the Bungendore Health Impact Assessment (HIA) identified three aspects of healthy communities as:

1. promoting physical activity
2. provision of water and
3. neighbourliness in two neighbouring communities in Bungendore, NSW.

The outcomes of the HIA resulted in the following aspects being included in the Palerang Local Environmental and Social and Community Plans.

---

In regard to climate change and its possible effects, it is vital that consideration be given to design of both homes and the wider development.  More consideration will need to be given to provision of shade, placement of homes on blocks, solar oriented building design, insulation, grey water recycling and renewable power sources (solar hot water, solar cells etc). 

The impacts of climate change will not only be environmental but will also affect public health, social and economic infrastructure.  Thus developers should pay attention to and plan for the implications of future climate change on their project  The community should be a partner in promoting and utilising sustainable living practices in order to cope with/mitigate the demands of a changing climate.

See http://www.cana.net.au/socialimpacts/australia/health.html and http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/publications/risk-vulnerability.html

Back to top

Make a comment

Designing developments that consider whole of life stages

While most greenfields developments are designed for families with young children, sustainable communities incorporate a varied range of age and demographics.  It is becoming more common in Australia that people buy houses in suburbs in or near where their parents/other family members live.  This allows for the maintenance of close family relationships and, where possible, for seniors to remain in their own homes, secure in the knowledge that family members are close by to assist when necessary.  In greenfields developments, this can be achieved by incorporating Over 55’s retirement accommodation as well as a range of smaller cottage style housing alternatives into the place plan.  This demographic spread and processes to engage a broad age and social range in community activities also addresses a gap which exists for many migrants to Australia living in new developments; access to an alternative group of role models and assistance previously available through extended family and grandparents. 

---

Case Study – Provision of small block/low maintenance housing styles

In Ellenbrook, retirement villages and lower maintenance housing styles for over 55’s are very popular and sell as soon as they are released.  Some larger double storey dwellings are included in the retirement villages to accommodate occasional visitors and grandchildren.  In order to encourage connection with the wider community, retirement villages have been designed with some houses facing the street.

In addition, to counter the rising cost of housing at Ellenbrook due to its desirability and the growing trend for existing residents to relocate within the development, the developer has explored alternative building materials for some cottage developments which also incorporate social housing. 

---

Case Study – Ellenbrook provision of community facilities

One of the cornerstones of a thriving community is the presence of good quality, well used community facilities.    The Ellenbrook Joint Venture made a decision to incorporate community and retail facilities right at the start of each ‘village’ project and small, accessible local shopping centres were built even before the houses. Each village is based on the WA Liveable Neighbourhoods design framework and pathways and bike tracks ensure that no house is more than 400-800 metres away from a local shopping centre. 

The land sales offices were the first tenants in the retail buildings and these premises were later taken over by local businesses. The presence of business premises and shops gave a sense of belonging to a real place, rather than just a bare housing estate.  The pizza shop and deli in one village centre quickly took off with its clients being the tradesmen working in construction, followed by the new residents.

The Joint Venture instituted a levy on each block sold of approximately $300 which is used to provide community infrastructure – barbeques, seats etc.  In addition, the joint venture matched these funds with those available from state and federal governments and non-government organisations to finance construction of a recreation centre and other community facilities.  The availability of developer/private funding for community development is a precursor to successful government grant applications.

---

Case Study – Schools in houses

In the early stages of a greenfields development, state education departments may not be willing to commit to building new schools until there is a proven need.  At Ellenbrook it was initially suggested by the Education Department that children be bussed to nearby schools.  This was deemed counter to the premise of creating a vibrant community and the joint venture pioneered the concept of ‘schools in houses’.  Groups of homes were used as classrooms by both state and private primary schools, who shared a common play area.  Once schools were built, these houses reverted to homes.   In later iterations of the program, schools were also housed in offices in the Coolamon village.

As the development has grown, schools have been built, both public and private and in some cases, primary schools share playing fields and, in one case, the school shares playing fields with the public and they are maintained by the local government.

Back to top

Make a comment

Incorporation of mixed use areas

Greenfields developments are by their very nature situated in peri-urban areas that may not have established employment opportunities or local transport infrastructure.  Sustainable communities are designed to operate at the holistic level of providing all the facilities necessary within a defined footprint that will cater for the expected population’s employment and everyday activity requirements.  In order to avoid the ‘dormitory” suburb tag, it is vital to encourage local based businesses through active support and advocacy.  Design of specific areas of a greenfields development can accommodate mixed use and local retail centres can provide offices and shop space.  This is particularly necessary when the new development is at a distance from the established community facilities and employment/industrial catchment. Provision of smart cabling for telephone, broadband and computer networking in new homes is also vital to encourage home based business as well as catering to the technological needs of the modern family.

---

Case Study – Planning for employment opportunities

Ellenbrook has three employment catchments in light industrial and retail centres in the nearby suburbs of Morley, Malaga and Midland.  However, given the design intention to create employment opportunities within the Ellenbrook Regional Centre, it is expected that when the Town Centre is complete in 2009, there will be capacity to provide employment for 50% of the working population within Ellenbrook in the various service, retail and light industrial tenants.  The Ellenbrook Community Resource Centre initiated the Ellenbrook Employment Resource Centre which brings together employment with local jobseekers.

Some areas in the various villages have provision of extended parking areas behind groups of houses.  This allows for home based businesses to operate from these premises, without the difficulties posed by reduced or no available parking.  All homes in the Ellenbrook development are wired for broadband use.

Back to top

Make a comment

Working alongside the community

To develop community ownership, it is necessary to support and encourage the new community to take some responsibility for developing the ‘identity’ of their new community and to combat the globalizing sameness in many of our neighbourhoods.  This can be through design features allied to the local history pre-development – public sculptures, place and street names, retaining and incorporating natural bush areas within the development.  Supporting community interest group activity through grants, sponsorship and  initial administrative support and staging of events such as Christmas Carols or local festivals are also effective tools.

---

Case Study – Community development for developers 101!

The developer, LWA Properties, has made a commitment to the success of Ellenbrook through siting their head office in the town centre and through putting together a cohesive team of planners and community development consultants to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the local community as well as their own corporate sustainability.  They have eschewed the ‘bouncy castle’ form of community development (sausage sizzles, cursory needs assessment and consultants working in isolation) in favour of an ongoing programme of support for community organisations, timely provision of community facilities and working alongside and supporting the community to encourage longevity and ultimate community ownership.  The success of this program is evidenced by the myriad of community groups which operate in the development from the community radio station, to the free Windows on Ellenbrook newspaper (inaugurated by the Woodlake Residents Association in 1996), performance and sporting groups.

The Ellenbrook Cultural Foundation is one such group which has become an active deliverer of arts programmes and concerts, supported by the various members of the development team.  An art gallery is situated in the developer’s offices in the town centre, emphasising their ongoing links to the community.

Back to top

Make a comment

Key Issues

Benefits

Incorporating ongoing community engagement throughout the span of the development process can result in developing a lively community where others will desire to live, creating a positive upward influence on house and land package prices and sales.  New land releases are keenly sought after and developers are in a position to influence the design of community buildings such as schools and businesses to ensure they maintain the desired ethos of being close to the community through design and plot placement.

Back to top

Make a comment

Risks

Building what is essentially a new town is a massive undertaking over a long period.  Without careful attention to what homeowners required for sustainable lifestyles, incorporating support for community activities and developing five villages which while sharing a similar level of facility were designed on different themes to ensure diversity of house and infrastructure design, it is likely that Ellenbrook would not be as desirable a place to live.

The risk involved in engaging communities and working to promote ownership of their 'place' is that expectations may be raised which are difficult or infeasible to meet. It is vital that all engagement processes are transparent and limitations with regard to implementing outcomes are clearly communicated at the outset. Some community development activities may be more usefully conducted by the local government, with support from the developer.

Back to top

Make a comment

Savings

The benefits of incorporating community engagement into the project from the beginning have been especially valuable when applying for government and third party funding for community facilities such as the recreation centre.  Government funding for community projects usually requires in kind and private funding to succeed.

As mentioned above, savings will also accrue to the developer from the community's word of mouth advertising of their community as a good place to live.  This will be invaluable when competition for sales becomes a factor in a slower housing market and will have more impact than public relations slogans.

Back to top

Make a comment

Costs

The estimated costs assocated with community development in a new greenfields site should be incorporated into the total development plan from the outset.  Community facilities can be financed by a levy exercised on each block when initially sold, supplemented by government funding and in kind third party contributions.

Costs for implementing community engagement depend on the choice of process employed and the level of value placed on the process by the developer.  Given that badly planned and implemented processes will have a negative flow on cost to both the developer and the community, it is highly recommended that an experienced community engagement consultant be engaged, with appropriate support from the development team where required.  Community engagement consultants should be engaged for the life of the project rather than on a one off basis.  Continuity and visibility of engagement processes are vital for building productive relationships with the community as well as in developing and making use of relevent community history and local knowledge accumulated over time.

Back to top

Make a comment

Barriers

Perceived barriers to the success of a new greenfield development could arise from the distance from the established locality, existing services and employment opportunities.  Developing a cohesive community spirit requires commitment to ongoing support and encouragement of clubs and groups and carefully designed provision of community facilities including vital public transport links. While fledgling community groups should be supported by the developer, it is vital that these groups are ultimately owned and run by the community and are encouraged to become independent.

Back to top

Make a comment

Benchmarks

The success of a greenfields development will be measured by:

• ease of sales and demand for existing and new release plots
• level of takeup and support for community activities
• willingness of the community to support retail and business operations within the community
• the overall sustainability of the development and its relationship to the local environment and other local communities.

Back to top

Make a comment

Development phase actions

Feasibility

As has been illustrated above, engagement with the existing community and local stakeholders is vital at the feasibility stage in order to :

• record local history and topography and incorporate it where possible into the design process,
• gauge the importance of biodiversity values on the proposed site and take measures to protect/replant
• measure the level of community support or otherwise for the proposed development and design consultation processes to address this

Back to top

Make a comment

Planning

Community engagement is a necessary step when developing plans for new sites  (see factsheet on Community Engagement).

Back to top

Make a comment

Design

It is vital that community interests are taken into account at all the design stages of the new development.  Sensitive design to incorporate local topography and existing remnant bush will deliver a new development that is in sync with its surroundings.

Back to top

Make a comment

Construction

It is vital that contractors are educated as to the construction requirements in a place sensitive development.  Broadscale clearing of all trees and remnant bush should not be the first stage of the new development.

Back to top

Make a comment

Lot Creation

By taking the ethos of developing community 'ownership' and ease of social relations into account at all stages during the development, it is likely that more sustainable community will result.  Attention to a diversity of lot creation (aspect, size, building guidelines) to provide for a wide demographic will contribute to this. 

Back to top

Make a comment

Completion

Developing community ownership is an ongoing and gradual process throughout the life of the development from the initial feasibility stage through to completion of the infrastructure and the last home being built.  A comprehensive community and stakeholder engagement program will have played a large part in enabling the developer to deliver a semi-matured community and to start to plan for disengagement.  It is recommended that removing support is a gradual process and that the necessary support for community activities can be replicated/undertaken by the local government.

Back to top

Make a comment

Armstrong R, 2002, Sustainable Community Regeneration: Issues and Opportunities. A Background Discussion Paper Prepared for the State Sustainability Strategy

Beatley T, 2004, Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Burton P, 2003,  Community involvement in neighbourhood regeneration: stairway to heaven or road to nowhere? CNR Paper 13.  Retrieved 2 January 2008 from www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk.

Burton P, Goodlad R, Croft J, Abbott J, Hastings A, Macdonald G and Slater T, 2004, What works in community involvement in area-based initiatives? A systematic review of the literature.  Online Report 53 /04.  Home Office, UK.

Caluya G, (Aug. 2007) "The Architectural Nervous System: Home, Fear, Insecurity," M/C Journal, 10(4). Retrieved 09 Dec. 2007 from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0708/05-caluya.php

Capon, AG and Blakely EJ,  2007, Checklist for healthy and sustainable communities.  NSW Public Health Bulletin, Vol 18, p 51-54. 

Gow, AJ and Dubois, LG,  September 2007. Bungendore health impact assessment: urban development in a rural setting. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin 18(10) 164–165.

Heid, J,2004  Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities.Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute.

Hendrickson, Bill,  2005 Review: Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age, by Timothy Beatley. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2004, 392 pp. See http://www.issues.org/21.4/br_hendrickson.html. Access date 9.12.07

Hartz-Karp J and Newman P,  2006, The Participative Route to Sustainability in Paulin, S. 2006.  Community Voices: Creating Sustainable Spaces. Perth: UWA Press. 

Howe, Renate T. Vol. 18(3–4) NSW Public Health Bulletin 

Mackay, H. October 15, 2005.  A sense of place, The Age. 

Paulin, S, 2006, Community Voices: Creating Sustainable Spaces, Perth: UWA Press.

Ruane, S. South Beach Village: Prospects for a Sustainable Urban Settlement.

Tuan, Yi-Fu, 1975, 'Place, an experiential perspective', Geographical Review Vol 65 (No 2):pp151-165.