Review of international 'best practice' cited in the NSW Green Paper on planning reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metropolitan governance structuresVancouver, Seattle and Portland also demonstrate successful governance structures, through both their engagement strategies and the delivery of their plans.They demonstrated that to be successful, delivery of strategic and metropolitan planning needs to be responsive to the community and led by elected representatives.In each of the three cases analysed, local government representatives were central in delivering metropolitan-wide goals and objectives.In Portland this was through an additional tier of directly elected officials, in Vancouver as an organisation of local government officials, and in Seattle through the state-government appointment of local officials to a regional body.This is in contrast to the Green Paper"s distancing of strategic planning from political processes and the establishment of forums like the CEO group, which lacks representation of community-elected officials. State government funding incentivesA fourth jurisdiction cited, the US state of Maryland, was a specific approach to state government intervention.It incentivised development within established urban footprints by limiting the provision of infrastructure subsidy to identified "priority funding areas".Although there is some merit to this approach, it may not translate to NSW where the state government provides limited subsidy across all development.This means it would have limited effect in redirecting development to more desirable locations, which could be more effectively achieved through traditional proscriptive planning interventions.There is no evidence in Marylandas seemed to be proposed in the Green Paperof using funding restrictions to encourage local governments to align local planning policies to metropolitan planning targets. Consolidated state government planning guidanceThe final jurisdiction cited was the UK, where recent reforms have led to a significant reduction in the scope of policy guidance from the central government: consolidated into the "National Planning Policy Framework".Again, there were parallels with the proposed reforms here, where state government planning policies are complex and opaque.However, the experience in the UK has been fraught with politicisation, with concern that a mismanaged devolution to local government, intended to make desired development more efficient, will actually lead to too few protections against inappropriate development.In all events, the NPPF has only been in place for six months, so cannot yet be considered "best practice".As is noted in the NSW Government"s own Stein Review, reducing the scope of central planning policies to the extent of the UK reform requires a strengthened local planning framework, and "is only feasible if there is a move away from state intervention in local government.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".