See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265853319

Urban cemetery planning and the conflicting role of local and regional
interests

Article  in  Land Use Policy · January 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.011

CITATIONS READS

27 4,232

2 authors:

Gemma Bennett Peter J Davies

Penrith City Council Macquarie University
2 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   845 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cemetery planning View project

Urban Ecology Renewal Investigation Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter J Davies on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Urban cemetery planning and the conflicting role of local

and regional interests
G. Bennett, P.J. Davies ∗
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Strategic planning for cemeteries should be one of the easier tasks for planners. Supply and demand
Received 5 March 2014 can be estimated with some certainty. Land allocation through a zoning and assessment process should
Received in revised form 4 August 2014 be able to identify and secure appropriate locations with minimal social and environmental impact and
Accepted 11 August 2014
disruption. However the stigma of a new cemetery in a neighbourhood, irrespective of need, can be a
divisive land use issue that can result in strong resident opposition buoyed by the support of their elected
Keywords:
representatives. This paper examines past and present issues that have informed cemetery planning in
Cemetery
Sydney and, through four case studies, traces the tensions within the development assessment process
Urban planning
Development assessment
for new cemeteries at the rural–urban fringe. We conclude that regionally based planning and assess-
Regional planning ment must play the dominant role in considering this land use to balance what appears to be emotive
NIMBY community response to what is an essential activity within the urban fabric.
Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction opposed by contemporary society (Harvey, 2006; Gilbert, 1980;

Cemeteries have largely been ignored by planners and are rarely
considered a critical land use (Basmajian and Coutts, 2010; Kong,
1999). Strategic guidelines are decades old and not reflective of
current burial practices (Coutts et al., 2011; Niţă et al., 2013). His-
torically, environmental and health concerns sought to provide
adequate buffers between the living and the dead (Rugg, 2000,
1998; Fiedler et al., 2012). The resulting pattern that persists across
many western countries has been to relegate cemeteries and other
burial places to the urban periphery. Lower land values at the urban
fringe have made acquisition by both the public and private sector
more viable (Harvey, 2006). Over time these areas have become sur-
rounded by houses and supporting infrastructure (Basmajian and
Coutts, 2010; Niţă et al., 2013; Rugg, 1998; Thomas, 1963).
For many cultures there has been a shift in the acceptance and
visibility of death that has meant cemeteries are less visited and
less integral to the day to day activities of society (Matthey et al.,
2013; Jalland, 2006; Johnson, 2008; Pitte, 2004). In decades past it
has been common practice to clear, relocate or convert unused and
neglected cemeteries for other purposes. However, in contraindi-
cation to their decreasing social connection, the total obliteration of
these sacred spaces has become politically undesirable and strongly
Pattison, 1955). At a strategic level, cemetery planning could be
at best described as an afterthought with little relationship to local
demand let alone social integration.
Demographic projections for an ageing, more culturally diverse
and growing population clearly point to the need to develop strate-
gic plans for burial infrastructure and policy that responds to
demand (Basmajian and Coutts, 2010; Zelinsky, 1994; Pattison,
1955). In Sydney, for example, an ageing population combined with
advances in life expectancy will mean the number of people over
65 years will double from 500,000 in 2006 to over 1 million by
2036, with those aged over 85 years will increase from 64,000 to
almost 200,000 respectively (NSW Department of Planning, 2008).
As this cohort move into their later stages of life, mortality rates
increase and demand for interment space will surge (Basmajian
and Coutts, 2010; Coutts et al., 2011; Longoria, 2014). However,
planning for cemeteries seems to be overshadowed by a preoccu-
pation with the living through retirement planning and provision
of aged care facilities (National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre,
2012; NSW Government, 2012a).
For the urban planner, there are a number of factors which make
establishing new cemeteries and related facilities a complex propo-
sition. Some of these factors are:

• a mix of public and private interests in the ownership and man-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9850 7220; fax: +61 2 9850 6052. agement of cemeteries;
E-mail address: peter.davies@mq.edu.au (P.J. Davies). • the cost and availability of suitable land that will drive location;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.011
0264-8377/Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
• multiple and sometime conflicting laws and planning controls;
• many government agencies involved in an assessment process
and or administration;
• increasing regulatory and compliance obligations concerning the
day to day running of cemeteries; and
• community engagement around strategic and statutory planning
for this type of land use is often fraught with opposition.
The interaction of these factors make land use planning for
cemeteries an ideal case study to observe the intersection of
strategic planning and how proposals are considered by planning
authorities given they typically represent a new land use into an
otherwise homogeneous urban or peri-urban typology.
This paper examines cemetery planning in Sydney. It analyses
the development assessment process and outcome of four propo-
sals for new cemetery proposals at the urban fringe (Fig. 2). The
discussion canvasses various planning processes and issues includ-
ing the capacity of local and regional planning authorities to deal
with this infrequently considered and often contentious land use.
The paper postulates that there is a significant division between the
interests or wants of the local community in terms of their imme-
diate amenity and land use and the longer-term needs of society.
For many land use decisions there will be an inevitable tension
that places local planning against regional or metropolitan strategic
planning (e.g. the vertical communities as described by Tropman
et al., 2001). Such tensions are not unique to cemetery planning and
generally surround the siting of locally unwanted projects (Lesbirel,
2011). For example there are many instances of local opposition
to changes in land use within or near existing residential areas.
This may be as ‘simple’ as increasing housing density (e.g. Ruming,
2014) and more controversially sex businesses (e.g. Prior and Crofts,
2012) and intensive agriculture (e.g. Metze and Van Zuydam, 2013).
What makes cemetery planning of particular interest is that society
expects to have a place to bury our dead. The question is where?
Historical and current demands for cemetery planning and
provision
The issue of cemeteries exhausting their space is not a new sit-
uation either for Sydney or other cities around the world (Coutts
et al., 2011; Hussein and Rugg, 2003; Longoria, 2014; Santarsiero
et al., 2000; Teather, 1998). In Sydney the first cemeteries were
created within a reasonable walking distance from the town cen-
tre (Griffin and Tobin, 1997). In 1845 the General Cemetery Bill
proposed the establishment of the first public cemetery to replace
the George Street burial ground in order to build Sydney Town
Hall (Murray, 2003). A series of burial grounds for various denom-
inations were subsequently established at Devonshire Street, now
the site of Central Railway Station. It was not long before the
crowded and unsanitary conditions at the new cemetery, along
with problems at other cemeteries around the city, sparked a
series of NSW Parliamentary debates and inquiries (Murray, 2003).
Frequent complaints about odours ‘unmistakeably suggestive of
coffins’ emanating from Sydney’s cemeteries were linked to inade-
quate drainage and poor siting of cemetery grounds (Murray, 2003).
By 1866 overcrowded and neglected cemeteries closed for
burials posed significant public health and safety fears for the gov-
ernment and communities (Jalland, 2006). In an effort to solve
Sydney’s cemetery problem a 200 ha Crown cemetery was opened
in 1876 on the western outskirts, 17 km from the city centre
(NSW Government, 2013c). This new public cemetery, Rookwood
Necropolis, led to the closure of the Devonshire Street cemetery to
new burials and the introduction of new laws to control or close
other city cemeteries (Murray, 2003). Many of these cemeteries
either no longer exist, having been relocated for further urban
451
100.0
Percentage of the total NSW population
90.0
80.0
Total Chrisan
70.0
60.0 Anglican
50.0 Catholic
40.0
Non-Chrisan
30.0 religions
No religion
20.0
10.0
0.0
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Fig. 1. Proportion of the NSW population affiliated with selected religions,
1961–2011. ABS (1961–1991, 2011d).
expansion, or are controlled by various heritage planning instru-
ments (for example, Camperdown cemetery in inner Sydney was
closed in 1868 and the remaining portions are listed under the
NSW Heritage Act 1977, Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011
and Register of the National Estate for cultural significance (NSW
Government, 2013e)). Over the years Rookwood Necropolis has
expanded to 286 ha and is now the largest cemetery in the south-
ern hemisphere with over one million burials (NSW Government,
2013c). Rookwood continues to accept almost a quarter of Syd-
ney’s interments with estimated capacity to provide sufficient
burial space to 2016. If more flexible arrangements for burials are
introduced and the on-going trend for cremations continue, burial
space should last until 2026 (NSW Government, 2013c).
Most cemeteries in Sydney were originally designed and divided
into denominational sections based on the most recent census at
the time of establishment. As the demographics of Sydney have
changed these original land allocations, in which the Christian
faiths predominated, have not evolved to meet the needs of more
recent migrant communities of different religions (Fig. 1). The pro-
portion of the population professing non-Christian religions has
increased, particularly since the early 1970s, however this has not
been reflected proportionately in the area of land available for buri-
als. In Sydney the space shortage has been felt most acutely by
the Islamic and Jewish communities with a critical shortage of
burial lands. The remaining space in 2012 was estimated to be
12–17 months for the Islamic community and 6–8 years for the
Jewish community leading to the state government to support the
last remaining portion of land available in Rookwood Necropolis
being allocated to these two faiths in 2012 (Keene, 2013; NSW
Government, 2012b; Narunsky, 2012).
Land use planning for cemeteries has not been undertaken
in many decades nor has it been considered within strategic
metropolitan land use planning. The most recent strategic land
use planning document was a discussion paper issued in 2008
by the former NSW Department of Lands (manager of the Crown
cemeteries). The discussion paper sought community feedback on
various options to extend the longevity of existing cemeteries
and to increase provision of new burial spaces in Sydney (NSW
Department of Lands, 2008b). The discussion paper stated ‘[I]f no
action is taken, metropolitan public cemeteries will eventually run
out of burial space.’ Further the capacity was expected to be reached
by 2035 with an estimated 680,000 burial sites remaining in Syd-
ney across Crown, local government and private cemeteries, the
majority of available space in private cemeteries (NSW Department
of Lands, 2008b, p. 4). Of more than 200 cemeteries in the Syd-
ney greater metropolitan area only 70 were actively selling plots
(NSW Department of Lands, 2008a,b). These estimates carried a
caveat as to the accuracy and completeness of cemetery records,
452 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
with limited data available for many public cemeteries (operated
by state or local government) and those managed by the private
sector, a problem common to many jurisdictions (Coutts et al.,
2011). Despite this discussion paper no strategic plan has emerged,
although recent legislative reform of the cemetery industry, but not
cemetery planning (see section ‘Legal reform of the cemetery indus-
try in NSW’ below), points towards an improvement in practice (yet
to be realised).
Within the state of NSW it is important to note that the pri-
vate sector plays an important role in the provision of cemetery
and related services. This public/private mix occurs in only two
Australian jurisdictions (the other being Queensland) with the gov-
ernment the sole provider in the other states and territories.
Legal reform of the cemetery industry in NSW
In 2012 the NSW Government commenced the reform of ceme-
tery laws that culminating in the enactment of the Cemeteries and
Crematoria Act, 2013 (NSW) that commenced 1 January 2014. The
objectives of the Act place a higher onus on government and the
private sector to have a strategic focus ensuring sufficient land and
facilities catering for all religious and cultural groups. The objec-
tives also specify that: operations of cemeteries and crematoria
demonstrate satisfactory levels of accountability, transparency and
integrity; and the cost of burials and cremations are transparent
and affordable practices are available to those of limited means.
To achieve these objectives, the Act requires the establishment
of the Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW Board (in effect serving as a
quasi-governmental organisation) to: assess and plan for interment
needs; acquire land; advise the Minister; collect information (such
as burials, interment right holders and memorials); and develop
industry codes of practice. These responsibilities pave the way for
an evidenced-based strategic plan sometime in the future. As part
of the legal reforms, the range of burial practices have expanded
with renewable rights offered for new burials for an initial term of
25 years and maximum 99 year tenure, a notable departure from
the perpetual rights as previously existed. After tenure expiry the
site may be reused by reinterring the person’s remains at a greater
depth and burying another above.
Land use planning and cemetery planning
Within the development of the most recent metropolitan plan
for Sydney (NSW Government, 2013b) cemetery planning was
flagged as one of the few specific examples of a strategic planning
issue that could bring together a number of levels and agencies
within government and the private sector. Unfortunately progress
on the draft metropolitan plan has stalled as a result of the broader
parliamentary debate on the introduction of new planning reforms
to NSW (Ruming and Davies, 2014) and so the progress on ceme-
tery planning. The recognition of the need for strategic planning for
cemeteries is nevertheless heartening for the sector.
Tackling cemetery planning as a whole of government issue
will have its challenges and these are not unique to the Australian
setting. The contention surrounding these cemetery and cremato-
rium proposals parallels that which has been experienced overseas
such as urban Asia (Kong, 2012), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe (Mpofu,
2013), Edgware, UK (Rosen, 2009), Louisville and Tampa in the
US (Wimsatt, 2013; Varian, 2013). As highlighted by the contro-
versy of sea burials in Hong Kong as discussed by Kong (2012),
resolving who has influence, responsibility and ultimate power of
the decision can be confusing. It is likely that multiple bureaucra-
cies and Ministers will be involved that provides broad scope for
community lobbying and intervention. For those against the intro-
duction of new burial locations, a divided bureaucracy and multiple
decision-making authorities can increase the effectiveness of com-
munity lobbying to ensure that it does not occur in their backyard.
In NSW, new cemeteries and crematoria are now permissible
with development consent across a wider area of the state than has
been the case in recent history. The simplified land use zoning sys-
tem established under the standard instrument (NSW Government,
2013f) sets what is permissible with or without consent and what
is prohibited. It has eliminated the capacity of councils to intro-
duce its own specific variations, as was the previous case that often
prohibited or severely restricted new cemeteries in the local gov-
ernment area. This reform however has encountered unintended
controversy. In particular where a new activity is proposed and
residents and elected councillors feel this is not compatible with
‘their’ local vision. This inevitable tension between the immediate
wants, both spatial and temporal, of a local community and broader
strategic planning needs is one that remains an ongoing dilemma
for local and regional planners and their respective communities
and other interested parties (Davies and Selmon, 2013).
To highlight this tension between local wants and regional
needs, four case studies involving the development assessment
process of new cemetery and related activities at the urban fringe of
Sydney are examined. The analysis focuses on the social and envi-
ronmental issues, land use compatibility and governance structures
around decision-making. The examples used are within one local
government area (LGA), Liverpool City Council, although they are
not unique. Similar issues arising from other proposals such as a
crematorium at Faulconbridge (The Carrick Group Pty Ltd v Blue
Mountains City Council, 2011; Madigan, 2010), an Islamic cemetery
in the Hawkesbury region (Hawkesbury City Council, 2013) and
expansion of Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park at Botany (Randwick
City Council, 2012) providing additional evidence of the tension
between local wants and regional planning needs.
The cemetery planning assessment process in
South-Western Sydney: four case studies
Liverpool LGA is located 30 km south-west of the Sydney CBD
(Fig. 2) and is identified as a future major regional city in the
Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (NSW Government, 2013a,d). The
population is expected to increase from 829,000 in 2011 to a target
of 1,298,000 by 2031, a 54 per cent increase (NSW Government,
2013d). There are a number of suburbs within the LGA currently
defined by their rural character and supported by a rural zoning.
They typically have larger lot sizes within which small scale agri-
culture, hobby farms and native vegetation exist. Bringelly and
Greendale are neighbouring rural-residential suburbs within the
Liverpool LGA, located 20 and 30 kilometres west of Liverpool
respectively. The combined population of these suburbs in 2011
was less than 3000 (ABS, 2011a,b) and is forecast to rise to 28,000
people by 2036 under the south west growth centres plan by the
NSW Government (NSW Government, 2013d (note: Greendale is
included within the North Bringelly precinct). During 2010, Liver-
pool City Council (LCC) received applications for three cemeteries
and one crematorium with a total of 91,000 burial plots and 40,000
ash interments (Table 1).
Local planning law and policy and the assessment and appeal
pathways
The Liverpool Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2008 (LCC, 2008b)
is the local planning instrument that sets the land use zones
and defines what is permitted with and without consent and
what is prohibited (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
1979 (NSW) (EPAA) Part 3 Division 4; NSW Government, 2009).
Development applications (DAs) are assessed in accordance with
 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459 453

Fig. 2. Liverpool LGA in relation to Sydney (insert). The cemetery developments on Greendale Road, Bringelly and Greendale (below).

Table 1
Summary of cemetery and crematoria applications lodged with Liverpool City Council since 2010.

Application Proposed capacity Lodgement date of Assessment process Submissions received Outcome and date of
DA decision

Cemetery 6150 plots 4 February 2010 Council with advice 715 plus Refusal by Council
31 Greendale Road, from Liverpool IHAP 1 petition (306 17 October 2011
Bringelly [DA957/2010] signatures)
Proponent appealed to – Refusal by NSW LEC 13
the NSW LEC June 2013
Cemetery 14,490 plots 29,822 ash 22 October 2010 Sydney West Region 147 (initial application) Refusal by JRPP
41 Greendale Road, interments (total 44,321 JRPP 50 (amended 24 November 2011
Bringelly [DA394/2011; in 2 stages) application)
JRPP2011SYW067]
NSW LEC 230 (amended Approval by NSWLEC
application) 9 January 2013
Cemetery 71,000 plots (revised to 15 March 2010 Sydney West Region 216 (initial application) Deferral by JRPP
321 Greendale Road, 60,000) JRPP 41 (amended 16 July 2011
Greendale [DA1133/2010; application) Approval by JRPP
JRPP2010SYW027] 23 August 2012
Crematorium 10,000 ash interments 23 April 2010 Sydney West Region 146 across 3 exhibition Approval by JRPP 28
992 Greendale Road, JRPP periods plus April 2011
Greendale [DA1291/2010; 1 petition (>500
JRPP2010SYW030] signatures)
454 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
the EPAA (ss 78A-81) and for the most part the local council has this
responsibility. Depending on the capital value, type of infrastruc-
ture or project, significance (regional or state) and its location, the
consent authority may be the Minister for Planning or other Min-
ister (EPAA s 4 (1)), the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC)
(EPAA s 23B), a Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) (EPAA s 23
G, H), or other public authority other than a council such as an
independent hearing and assessment panel (EPAA s 23J).
In addition to the normal assessment undertaken by coun-
cil, Liverpool city council has established two supportive internal
assessment pathways: a Development Assessment Panel to ‘pro-
vide an additional review for certain types of development
applications which still have outstanding objects’ (LCC, 2013a); and
an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) to ‘provide
an independent hearing for objectors and applicants on certain
applications’ which makes recommendations to the Council for
determination (LCC, 2013b).
The Sydney West JRPP has responsibility for determining region-
ally significant development applications (including those within
the Liverpool LGA). It acts as the relevant planning authority when
appointed by the Minster for Planning and provides advice to the
Minister for Planning or the Director-General of Planning when
requested (EPAA Part 2A Division 2; LCC, 2013c). In three of the
case studies in this paper the DA was initially assessed by the
Sydney West JRPP. This assessment pathway was a result of the cap-
ital investment value of the proposed projects being greater than
$10 million (NSW Department of Planning, 2010; Joint Regional
Planning Panels, 2013; LCC, 2013c).
All development proposals were located within the RU1 Pri-
mary Production zone as defined by the Liverpool LEP 2008. The
objectives for this zone as defined by the LEP are: to encourage
sustainable, diverse and appropriate primary industry produc-
tion by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base;
and to minimise the fragmentation of resource lands and con-
flict between adjoining land use zones (LCC, 2008a). Cemeteries
and crematoria are permitted under the RU1 zone, with con-
sent. A cemetery is defined as ‘a building or place used primarily
for the interment of deceased persons or pets or their ashes,
whether or not it contains an associated building for conduct-
ing memorial services’ and crematoria as ‘a building in which
deceased persons or pets are cremated, whether or not it con-
tains an associated building for conducting memorial services’ (LCC,
2008b).
The planning controls for cemeteries, crematoriums and funeral
chapels are contained in the Liverpool Development Control Plan
(DCP) 2008 (LCC, 2008a). A DCP is a planning instrument subordi-
nate to the LEP, is not legally binding and in practice is primarily
used to provide additional details and controls to inform developers
and the assessment process (EPAA s 74BA). The most relevant con-
trols within the Liverpool DCP for a cemetery include: minimum
site area of 15 ha, excluding where groundwater is within 3 m of
the surface; not on flood prone land; on a sealed road greater than
6 m in width; 10-m setback from street and 15 m from side and rear
boundaries; landscaped including a 1 m high berm (for screening);
adequate water supply to maintain landscaping; provision of traffic
study; and a management plan for operations and perpetual care
(LCC, 2008a, pp. 42–43).
Under NSW planning law, an applicant can appeal a decision
made by a planning authority to the specialist Land and Environ-
ment Court (LEC) (Land and Environment Court Act, 1979 NSW). For
environmental planning and protection matters, this may extend to
a merits appeal against the conditional consent or refusal to grant
consent (EPAA s 97). Where a matter is referred to the LEC, the
court takes the place of the original decision maker (for example
the Council or JRPP) and re-examines the matter including minor
changes that may have been made to the application. The court’s
decision is final and binding and becomes that of the original deci-
sion maker.
The four case studies: project proposals
31 Greendale Road, Bringelly
This application was submitted by the NSW United Turkish
Islamic Centre Incorporated in February 2010 for a 6150 plot ceme-
tery on a 10 ha site. It was assessed by the Liverpool IHAP in
September 2011 (LCC, 2011a) and refused by Council in October
2011 (LCC, 2011d). The IHAP identified several aspects of the pro-
posal that they considered were sufficient grounds for refusal
including: the presence of and impact on an endangered ecological
community on the site (requiring additional consideration under
the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 NSW and EPAA s 5A);
the potential impact of flooding; the size of the block (as it was
<10 ha did not comply with minimum requirement of the Liverpool
DCP); and inadequate drawings and expert reports that accompa-
nied the application.
The proponent appealed to the LEC against the refusal in April
2012 (LCC, 2012) and the court focused on two contentions. The
first related to technical matters (such as landscaping, screening
and flooding) that were modified during the course of the court
hearing although ultimately did not meet the standard required
by the court and resulted in the appeal being dismissed. The sec-
ond issue was the community interest which was divided between
the immediate local community represented by the Council whom
objected to the proposal and the Turkish Islamic community repre-
sented by the applicant that supported the proposal (NSW United
Turkish Islamic Centre v Liverpool City Council, 2013, para 16). The
merits of various arguments by the opponents to the application
were dismissed by the court with the exception of the ‘techni-
cal’ issue of lack of adequate screening from adjacent properties.
Within this consideration, the court also dismissed the claim that
this application should be assessed alongside the other three pro-
posals (which in the intervening period had been assessed or were
under consideration) as part of an argument of a proliferation of a
locally unwanted activity.
41 Greendale Road, Bringelly
This application was for a natural burial cemetery on a 10 ha
site containing 14,490 burial spaces and 29,822 ash interments
(Sydney West JRPP, 2011c). Natural burial cemeteries are char-
acterised by their bushland settings, use of biodegradable burial
materials, limited chemical use and minimal or no grave markers
(NSW Department of Lands, 2008b). This burial practice repre-
sents an emerging trend within the funeral industry due to growing
environmental awareness, increasing secularisation of society and
difficulties in maintaining traditional cemetery grounds (Clayden
and Dixon, 2007). The application was assessed by the Sydney West
JRPP for determination (capital value $17 million) and was refused.
The Panel stated”. . . that whilst there are some environmental ben-
efits of the cemetery with the retention of the remnant Cumberland
Plan Woodland [an endangered ecological community listed under
the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995] and minimal built
structures, the public interest, concern and unknown long-term
impacts upon groundwater, traffic and onsite operation aspects
of the cemetery and its financial viability outweigh any proposed
mitigation measures” (Sydney West JRPP, 2011c).
The applicant appealed to the NSW LEC (Itaoui v Liverpool
City Council, 2013) and the court focused on two contentions:
(1) whether the development complied with the objectives and
site controls within the Liverpool DCP 2008; and (2) whether the
development complied with the objectives of the RU1 Primary Pro-
duction zone and rural character of the area as set in the Liverpool
LEP 2008. In considering if the minimum lot size (10 ha) as set by
 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
the DCP was critical to the assessment, the court cited the prece-
dent of the decision by the Sydney West JRPP for 321 Greendale
Road cemetery (Sydney West JRPP, 2012b – see case study below
at 3.2.3). The court felt that the numeric standard set by the DCP
should not necessarily form a prescriptive criterion, particularly as
the application at hand was based on a natural burial proposal that
would serve to support the rural landscape character objective of
the Liverpool DCP 2008. In regard to the protection of the rural char-
acter of the area as reflected by the objectives of the land use zone,
the court found that the character was attributed more to the open-
ness of the land and scenic quality, with large pockets of vegetation,
rather than strictly its agricultural capacity and that in any case the
agricultural value of the land was low. In particular the court con-
cluded that the proposed use as a natural burial cemetery and the
associated landscaping would preserve the bushland, wildlife cor-
ridors and natural habitat, noting that arguments by the Council as
to the sensitivity of the endangered ecological community would
in any case constrain any future rural/agricultural use. As a broader
comment the court noted that ‘it is not the intention of the objec-
tives of the zone to retain every lot in the RU1 zone for agricultural
or primary production uses; however those non-agricultural uses
must be compatible’ (para 55).
The Court approved the application in January 2013.
321 Greendale Road, Greendale
This application, lodged in March 2010, was for a multi-
denominational lawn cemetery of 71,000 burial plots on a 40-ha
site and was assessed by the Sydney West JRPP (capital invest-
ment value $33 million). During the course of the assessment the
proponent modified the application reducing the number of burial
plots from 71,000 to 60,000 and providing additional information
in relation to environmental and traffic impacts and general lay-
out (Sydney West JRPP, 2011b). In November 2012 the Sydney
West JRPP granted approval for the project. In its statement the
panel noted that the cemetery was in the public interest given the
NSW Department of Land’s predictions of regional burial capacity
shortages (Sydney West JRPP, 2012c). The panel also found that
the application was consistent with land use zone objectives, com-
patible with the rural locality and unlikely to generate negative
environmental or road safety impacts (Sydney West JRPP, 2012c).
This application was the catalyst for the Council to modify
its DCP by increasing the minimum lot size for cemeteries and
crematoria from 10 to 15 ha, no doubt with the deliberate intent
of seeking to stop this and other cemetery proposals in the local
area (LCC, 2010). The result of this change in the DCP controls
was that the council officer’s report (to the Sydney West JRPP)
changed from a recommendation of conditional approval (Sydney
West JRPP, 2011b) to refusal (Sydney West JRPP, 2012a). At the local
political level it would appear that the elected councillors, two of
whom were also on the Sydney West JRPP, used this application
to request a State Government moratorium on new cemetery and
crematoria developments in the South West Growth Centre, specif-
ically on Greendale Road (LCC, 2011b) and to make the Council
the determining authority, rather than the Sydney West JRPP. Both
requests were denied by the Minister for Planning.
992 Greendale Road, Greendale
This application sought approval for a crematorium and space
for 10,000 receptacles on a 19.5 ha site and was assessed by the Syd-
ney West JRPP (the capital investment value was $9.6m, Sydney
West JRPP, 2011a). Initially lodged in April 2010, the application
was subsequently revised reducing the bulk and scale of the build-
ings and increasing the setback from Greendale Road (from 35
to 80 m) (Sydney West JRPP, 2011a). The DA was resubmitted in
October 2010. The site directly adjoined the Greendale Catholic
455
Cemetery at 986 Greendale Road and two other places of worship,
providing proximity to this complementary use.
The assessment report prepared by the council officer for
the Sydney West JRPP recommended conditional approval as
the proposal was consistent with zone objectives and planning
instruments, any environmental impacts could be mitigated with
appropriate consent conditions and there would be no significant
adverse impacts on the community (Sydney West JRPP, 2011a). The
JRPP approved the application in April 2011 (Sydney West JRPP,
2011d).
Following the approval, LCC sought legal advice as to the
prospects of success to challenge this decision through the NSW
LEC. The legal advice was heard in a closed session of Council on
27 June 2011 and while the resolution on this matter remains
confidential it can be inferred that the decision not to subse-
quently pursue court action suggests Council’s chance of success
in an appeal was low (LCC, 2011c). In an attempt to reverse the
decision, the State member for the electorate of Mulgoa (which
includes the suburb of Greendale) presented a public petition
to the Legislative Assembly of the NSW Parliament on 20 June
2011 ‘requesting the overturning of the JRPP decision regarding
DA-1291/2010 and the suspension of any government decisions
regarding cemeteries, crematoria and places of worship in Green-
dale’ (NSW Parliament, 2011). The Minster for Planning responded
to the Legislative Assembly by stating that the Sydney West JRPP is
an independent panel that had considered public submissions and
representations in its decision and conditional approval (Minister
for Planning, 2011). In effect the Minister for Planning dismissed the
petition signalling his support of regional planning and assessment
over local matters (noting that if it was successful it would have
captured the other three proposals that were also under various
stages of assessment).
Discussion
These case studies bring into focus four issues that are rele-
vant to contentious land uses, such as cemeteries: the relationship
between local versus regional decision making; the value of stan-
dardised, flexible and merits based planning instruments; the
importance of strategic planning; and the need for social and cul-
tural integration. Underlining each of these are the matters of scale
(temporal and spatial) and how these intersect and are influenced
by the many community interests and representations (Tropman
et al., 2001).
Local versus regional decision making
The case studies demonstrate the importance of independent
regional planning assessment panels. These panels have the capac-
ity to move beyond local and, arguably, parochial perspectives in
the development assessment process. Their independence is cru-
cial particularly where development applications become the focus
of elected councillors and other elected representatives in their
support of their local constituents’ often parochial interests. In the
context of community engagement and participation in the deci-
sion making process, it highlights two points: the challenges in
integrating local wants and regional needs; and how governance
structures consider local and regional representation in decision-
making.
NIMBY motivated positions can weigh heavily within the plan-
ning process. This is particularly poignant within the development
assessment process where generalities of policy and strategy are
beginning to be realised. To counter this influence, decision-making
governance structures need to be reflective of the nature and
type of the development proposal and where necessary elevate or
456 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
demote the decision to the most objective authority. In the case of
NSW, the underlying governance structures of the JRPPs is to have
experienced and independent professionals determine regionally
significant proposals alongside locally elected councillors (noting
that the independent members hold the balance of voting rights –
three independent and two council nominees). This is particularly
where there may be a divergence between the strategic direction of
regional strategies and the wants or interests of local communities.
The determining authority needs to be supported by planners
familiar with both local and regional policies and planning instru-
ments who are also separate from the politics of the decision. The
assessment reports by the council officers were notable for their
high level of understanding and appreciation of the environmen-
tal, social and economic factors related to the proposals. Given that
cemeteries are not a particularly common activity assessed by local
government, it may be reasonable to assume the level of expertise
and capacity to provide a detailed and an industry relevant report
could be limited and therefore best referred to regional body with
this level of specialist experience and skill (as occurs for develop-
ments that may impact on Sydney’s drinking water catchments,
Sydney Catchment Authority, 2011). However for these case stud-
ies, this was not the case with the expertise and independence
shown in the council officer reports sitting in sharp contrast to the
political strategies of the elected councillors seeking to challenge
the legitimacy of the regional assessment panel with the intention
to bring the applications back to council for determination, and
presumably refusal.
Standardised, flexible and merits based planning instruments
In the absence of any spatially based local or regional strategy as
to where new cemeteries are to be located, flexibility in planning
controls are key to facilitate where the market (private and pub-
lic) can best provide this service. To some degree this can relieve
the government of responsibility for more detailed strategic plan-
ning approach particularly given that a specific acquisition or land
identification process would no doubt be a catalyst for community
opposition.
The adoption of standard land use zones across the state and
incorporated within all local government planning instruments
provides the articulation for more certain land use planning deci-
sions. In NSW the standard instrument local environment plan
(NSW Government, 2013f)) has made cemeteries and crematoria
permissible with consent across a number of zones that were oth-
erwise prohibited under local provisions. This has enabled many
contentious land uses to be considered under a merits based
assessment guided (but not dictated by) by local policy such as
development control plans (DCPs).
Strategic planning and the cemetery
As a land use Woodthorpe (2011) has suggested cemeteries are
a public service. With increasing pressure on urban land cemeteries
have spatial competition and compression pressures (Kong, 2012)
and are subject to other uses, such as open space (Deering, 2010).
This extends their function beyond that described by Arffmann
(2000) (health and hygiene, place for sorrow, connection with reli-
gious views and marking the social status for descendants), further
complicating how cemetery planning should fit within government
led and contemporary metropolitan planning.
Metropolitan planning is often set with a generational (20–30
year) horizon (Searle and Bunker, 2010). In Sydney, for the large
part, metropolitan plans have ignored cemeteries. For advocates
of cemetery planning, this has not been aided by the lack of reli-
able data on the supply of and demand for burial plots. In addition
the cemetery industry (including government) has not been well
regulated and appears to be particularly poor with its own record
keeping (Coutts et al., 2011). In the most recent strategic plan for
Sydney, yet to be formally approved by the NSW Government, the
long term horizon has been set at 2031 with a particular focus
on identifying land and supporting infrastructure for new hous-
ing and economic growth (NSW Government, 2013b). Unlike other
metropolitan plans in recent years cemeteries are mentioned in the
draft strategy, described as ‘a vital element of social infrastructure’
(NSW Government, 2013b, pp. 34–35) and cited as an example of
how the activity could be considered within a strategic planning
context. However no specific detail as to spatial locations or tempo-
ral demand was provided although this was listed in the draft plan
as one of many short-term actions for the Department of Planning
and Infrastructure to consider.
The consideration of future cemeteries within broader
metropolitan planning would do well to reflect on two divergent
views as to how far ahead cemeteries should be planned. Larkin
(2011) for example advocates that cemeteries should be planned
with at least an 80–100 year horizon, as was the accepted practice
at the turn of the 19th century. This approach led to the establish-
ment of many of the major and usually government run facilities
such as Rookwood Necropolis in Sydney and the City of London
Cemetery and Crematorium (Woodthorpe, 2011). More recently
others, such as Coutts et al. (2011) consider this approach too
open to uncertainty due to changing burial practices and suggest
a medium term horizon of 30 years to take into account demo-
graphic, burial preferences, death practices and built environment
changes. This time step also happens to more closely align with
typical metropolitan planning horizons suggesting a greater oppor-
tunity for integrated planning. The shorter strategic period may also
provide greater certainty for private sector business planning and
investment particularly for new facilities at the rural-urban fringe
(Collinson, 2010).
From a land use planning perspective, the contemporary view
of the sacrosanct place a cemetery holds has made current and
new facilities effectively permanent fixtures in our urban landscape
(Matthey et al., 2013; Jalland, 2006; Johnson, 2008; Pitte, 2004;
Niţă et al., 2013). This has not always been the case with many
major cemeteries relocated to make way for urban renewal (Gilbert,
1980; Harvey, 2006; Murray, 2003; Pattison, 1955; Kong, 2012).
For the planning sector this means extra care needs to be taken
as to where new cemeteries are to be located to maximise posi-
tive and minimise negative effects (Basmajian and Coutts, 2010;
Coutts et al., 2011; Larsen and Coleman, 2010; NSW United Turkish
Islamic Centre v Liverpool City Council, 2013; Sydney West JRPP,
2011b, 2012b).
With many new facilities proposed at the rural–urban fringe,
this adds to the already contested metropolitan planning landscape
(Howard, 1902). This rural–urban fringe is important for natural
resources such as metropolitan water supply catchments, threat-
ened habitats and ecological communities and diminishing rural
land (Bunker and Houston, 2003; NSW Government, 2010). As a
place of both social and physical infrastructure, there is a need
to consider the placement of new cemeteries to ensure they will
remain suitable places for spiritual and reflective contemplation
(Wright, 2005), are accessible to the public (Francis et al., 2000), can
accommodate what Kong (2012) describes as spatial transcendence
and be adaptive to other innovative cemetery practices (Teather,
1998).
Social and cultural integration
An issue tied closely to land use compatibility is how soci-
eties accommodate the emergence of new religions within their
social structures including allocation of land and approval of
certain activities. In the proposal at 31 Greendale Road public
 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
submissions in opposition to Islamic influences were raised within
the Christian dominated communities of Bringelly–Greendale
(Australian Protectionist Party, 2010). At the 2011 Census the small
Bringelly–Greendale communities identified as 74 per cent Chris-
tian and 4 per cent Islamic while the broader Liverpool population,
one of the most diverse in the state, identified as 61 per cent
Christian and 11 per cent Islamic (ABS, 2011a,b,c,d). Development
applications made by religious organisations are often controver-
sial, even more so if they are made by a minority or relatively new
religious group in that society, as was evident in a recent application
by an Islamic school in south west Sydney (Bugg and Gurran, 2011).
With few Islamic burial grounds available in Sydney the establish-
ment of new facilities is required to accommodate this growing
community, along with schools, places of worship and other cul-
tural facilities (Bugg and Gurran, 2011).
Cemeteries play an important role in anchoring cultural com-
munities, helping to root an immigrant community to the new
homeland (Francis et al., 2000). Burial practices and grounds assist
in the construction of collective memory which strengthens formal,
informal, national and community identity (Ansari, 2007). Particu-
larly for the more culturally diverse communities such as Liverpool,
with 40 per cent of the population born overseas (ABS, 2011c), the
issues raised in submissions on the development application for
the cemetery at 31 Greendale Road emphasise the need to tackle
a broader land use compatibility question that focuses on cultural
and social integration. This goes beyond a single development pro-
posal and rightly the assessment decision dismissed the arguments
of local cultural differences.
While tangential to social issues but nevertheless a recur-
ring theme within community submissions to many development
applications is the impact of the proposal to property values. This
was raised and considered with appropriate poignancy by the coun-
cil officer who dismissed this as a planning matter in his report,
‘[t]he presence of a nearby cemetery may preclude some pur-
chasers from considering a property, however, a similar argument
can be mounted for many rural activities such as odorous poul-
try farms, composting activities, recently fertilised market gardens,
and noisy trail bike riders on rural residential properties to high
traffic generating quarries. A positive selling point for properties
near cemeteries is that in reality they are relatively benign neigh-
bours in terms of actual physical nuisance compared to many other
rural uses’ (LCC, 2011a, p. 85). For the cemetery industry these posi-
tives effects may well be the strong selling points that provide the
longer-term protection of all-encompassing urban encroachment.
Conclusion
The historical and continuing emphasis for the planning and
development of new cemeteries has been to position them at the
urban fringe. When viewed over time, the creation of new ceme-
teries can be used as a marker of the outward spread of urban
expansion with older cemeteries now surrounded by residential
and other development. Pragmatically, their location may have
more to do with land value, its availability and the success of the
development assessment process rather than any overriding spir-
itual value or cultural connection. As a contentious land use, the
planning and assessment of cemeteries will continue to face local
opposition and have to run the gauntlet of NIMBY submissions
within a merit based assessment process.
From a land use planning and broader societal perspective, there
has been little research to understand where the community want
cemeteries and related facilities. While Francis et al. (2000) contend
that users would ideally like a burial place close to family and kin,
what is clear from the case studies examined in this paper is that
local opposition to new cemetery projects is inevitable, irrespective
457
of demand (current and future) and regional planning intentions.
Local community priorities seem vested in the status quo, particu-
larly for this land use.
To overcome the pressures of local interests, development
assessment processes are best placed if a regionally focused and
independent panel considers proposals. Regional panels can have
significant value over locally elected councils as decision makers.
As evident in the case studies, elected officials placed greater value
on the immediate concerns (short term and local) rather than the
broader and longer term needs of a community growing in number
and in diversity.
Ultimately how cemeteries are integrated within metropolitan
planning may rest on how they are valued by society. These may be
places of physical or social infrastructure, extensions to the parks
and natural reserves systems, as single use facility for the burial of
the dead or having a more spiritual and cultural connection. Value
based considerations must provide a foundation to future planning
of cemeteries. It is through this approach that early consultation
with local and regional communities about longer term needs of
this land use should set the groundwork for an easier and more
successful development assessment outcome.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge Associate Professor Andrew
Kelly from the University of Wollongong, Linda Barach and the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable direction and comments
on this paper.
References
Ansari, H., 2007. ‘Burying the dead’: making Muslim space in Britain. Hist. Res. 80
(210), 545–566.
Arffmann, L., 2000. Whose cemetery? Mortality 5 (2), 125–126.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011a. 2011 Census of Population and Housing Place
of Enumeration Profile – Bringelly (SSC10339), Retrieved 21 July 2014 from
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/2011/
communityprofile/SSC10339?opendocument&navpos=220
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011b. 2011 Census of Population and Housing Place
of Enumeration Profile – Greendale (SSC11020), Retrieved 21 July 2014 from
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/2011/
communityprofile/SSC11020?opendocument&navpos=220
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011c. 2011 Census of Population and Housing Place
of Enumeration Profile – Liverpool (C) (LGA14900), Retrieved 21 July 2014 from
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/2011/
communityprofile/LGA14900?opendocument&navpos=220
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011d. 2011 Census of Population and Housing Time
Series Profile Based on Place of Enumeration – NSW (1), Retrieved 08 December
2013 from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/CensusOutput/copsub.NSF/All
%20docs%20by%20catNo/2011∼Community%20Profile∼1/$File/TSP 1.zip?
OpenElement
Australian Protectionist Party, 2010. Residents fight Muslim cemetery at Bringelly,
Retrieved 21 July 2014 from http://www.protectionist.net/2010/03/09/
residents-fight-muslim-cemetery-at-bringelly/
Basmajian, C., Coutts, C., 2010. Planning for the disposal of the dead. J. Am. Plann.
Assoc. 76 (3), 305–317.
Bugg, L., Gurran, N., 2011. Urban planning process and discourses in the refusal of
Islamic schools in Sydney, Australia. Aust. Plann. 48 (4), 281–291.
Bunker, R., Houston, P., 2003. Prospects for the rural–urban fringe in Australia: obser-
vations from a brief history of the landscapes around Sydney and Adelaide. Aust.
Geogr. Stud. 41 (3), 303–323.
2013. Cemeteries and Crematoria Act, NSW, Retrieved 25 February 2014 from
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+105+2013+cd+0
+N
Clayden, A., Dixon, K., 2007. Woodland burial: memorial arboretum versus natural
native woodland? Mortality 12 (3), 240–260.
Collinson, P., 2010. Are Cemeteries The New Safe Investment? The Guardian,
Retrieved 30 September 2013 from http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/
oct/16/cemeteries-burial-investment
Coutts, C., Basmajian, C., Chapin, T., 2011. Projecting landscapes of death. Landsc.
Urb. Plann. 102, 254–261.
Davies, P.J., Selmon, N., 2013. Streamlining the planning process and
supporting local identity and character – can the two exist? In:
Proceedings of the State of Australian Cities Conference, Sydney, 26–29
November.
458 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
Deering, B., 2010. From anti-social behaviours to X-rate: exploring social diversity
and conflict in the cemetery. In: Maddrell, A., Sidaway, J.D. (Eds.), Death-
scapes, Spaces for Death, Dying, Morning and Remembrance. Ashgate Publishing
Limited, Farnahm, England.
1979. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, NSW, Retrieved 20 September
2013 from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+203+
1979+cd+0+N
Fiedler, S., Breuer, J., Pusch, C., Holley, S., Wahl, J., Ingwersen, J., Graw, M., 2012.
Graveyards – special landfills. Sci. Total Environ. 419, 90–97.
Francis, D., Kellaher, L., Neophytou, G., 2000. Sustaining cemeteries: the user per-
spective. Mortality 5 (1), 34–52.
Gilbert, L., 1980. A Grave Look at History: Glimpses of a Vanishing Form of Folk Art.
John Ferguson Pty Ltd, Sydney.
Griffin, G.M., Tobin, D., 1997. In the Midst of Life. . .The Australian Response to Death,
2nd ed. Melbourne University Press, Carlton South.
Harvey, T., 2006. Sacred spaces, common places: the cemetery in the contemporary
American city. Geogr. Rev. 96 (2), 295–312.
Hawkesbury City Council, 2013. Development Assessment Report DA0548/12,
Retrieved 07 January 2014 from http://council.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/
MasterviewUI/Modules/documentMaster/ViewDocumentFTP.aspx?key=
QcxrWXx2DD03LZZ4pm5FSQ%3d%3d
Howard, E., 1902. Garden Cities of To-morrow, 2nd ed. S. Sonnenschein & Co, London.
Hussein, I., Rugg, J., 2003. Managing London’s dead: a case of strategic policy failure.
Mortality 8 (2), 209–221.
Itaoui v Liverpool City Council, 2013. NSW Land and Environment Court
1003, Retrieved 29 June 2013 from http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/
PJUDG?jgmtid=162635
Jalland, P., 2006. Changing Ways of Death. UNSW Press, Sydney.
Johnson, P., 2008. The modern cemetery: a design for life. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 9 (7),
777–790.
Joint Regional Planning Panels, 2013. The Functions and Roles of the Regional Panels
(July) Retrieved 15 December 2013 from http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/
Frequently%20asked%20questions/Regional%20Planning%20FAQs%201%20-
%20July%202013.pdf
Keene, N., 2013. Grave space shortage at NSW cemeteries prompts plans for tempo-
rary burials. In: The Daily Telegraph, Retrieved 5 October 2013 from http://www.
dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/grave-space-shortage-at-nsw-cemeteries-
prompts-plans-for-temporary-burials/story-fni0cx12-1226710098687
Kong, L., 1999. Cemeteries and columbaria, memorials and mausoleums: narrative
and interpretation in the study of deathscapes in geography. Aust. Geogr. Stud.
37 (1), 1–10.
Kong, L., 2012. No place, new place: death and its rituals in urban Asia. Urb. Stud. 49
(2), 415–433.
1979. Land and Environment Court Act, NSW, Retrieved 19 November 2013 from
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+204+1979+cd+
0+N
Larsen, J.E., Coleman, J.W.Q., 2010. Cemetery proximity and single-family house
price. Apprais. J. 78 (1), 33–49.
Larkin, M., (Masters Thesis) 2011. An Analysis of Land Use Planning Policies for
Cemeteries in Ontario. Ryerson University, Canada, Retrieved 8 September 2013
from http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations/1550
Lesbirel, S.H., 2011. Project siting and the concept of community. Environ. Polit. 20
(6), 826–842.
Liverpool City Council, 2008a. Development Control Plan 2008, Retrieved
16 October 2013 from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/media/documents/
EntireDCP/PDF-Part-5-Liverpool-Development-Control-Plan-2008-Amendment
-5.PDF
Liverpool City Council, 2008b. Local Environment Plan 2008, Retrieved 19 September
2013 from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/epi+403+
2008+cd+0+N
Liverpool City Council, 2010. Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting
held 29 November 2010, Retrieved 9 November 2013 from http://www.
liverpool.nsw.gov.au/media/documents/CouncilMeetings/29-November-.PDF
Liverpool City Council, 2011a. Matters for Independent Hearing and Assess-
ment Panel’s Consideration Thursday 29 September 2011, Retrieved 29
October 2013 from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/
0013/3550/IHAP-Report-29-September-2011.pdf
Liverpool City Council, 2011b. Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting
held 15 June 2011 (Item No SPDR01), Retrieved 27 October 2013 from
http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0013/4009/Council
Minutes Extraordinary Meeting 15 June 20111.pdf
Liverpool City Council, 2011c. Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 27 June
2011 (Item PLAN 02), Retrieved 29 October 2013 from http://www.liverpool.
nsw.gov.au/media/documents/CouncilMeetings/27-June.PDF
Liverpool City Council, 2011d. Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held
17 October 2011, Retrieved 12 September 2013 from http://www.liverpool.
nsw.gov.au/media/documents/CouncilMeetings/17-October-.PDF
Liverpool City Council, 2012. Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 28
May 2012, Retrieved 6 September 2013 from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.
au/media/documents/CouncilMeetings/28-May.PDF
Liverpool City Council, 2013a. Development Assessment Panel,
Retrieved 19 September 2013 from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/
planninganddevelopment/assessment-panels/development-assessment-panel
Liverpool City Council, 2013b. Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel,
Retrieved 19 September 2013 from (http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/
planninganddevelopment/assessment-panels/independent-hearing-and-
assessment-panel
Liverpool City Council, 2013c. Joint Regional Planning Panel, Retrieved 19 September
2013 from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/planninganddevelopment/
assessment-panels/joint-regional-planning-panel
Longoria, T., 2014. Are we all equal in death?: death competence in municipal ceme-
tery management. Death Stud. 38 (6), 355–364.
Madigan, D., 2010. Funeral home plan stirs local opposition. Blue Mt.
Gazet., Retrieved 7 January 2014 from http://bluemountainsgazette.
realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=35040&startpage=page0000020
Matthey, L., Felli, R., Mage, C., 2013. ‘We do have space in Lausanne. We have a large
cemetery’: the non-controversy of a non-existent Muslim burial ground. Soc.
Cult. Geogr. 14 (4), 428–444.
Metze, P.A.P., Van Zuydam, S., 2013. Pigs in the city: reflective deliberations on the
boundary concept of agroparks in the Netherlands. J. Environ. Policy Plann.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.819780.
Minister for Planning, 2011. Letter from Hon Brad Hazzard to Clerk of the Legislative
Assembly, 23 October 2011, Retrieved 7 November 2013 from http://www.
parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la/latabdoc.nsf/0/6dac38a03692c36aca25790600
24b89e/$FILE/Gov%20response%20to%20500+%20petition%20on%20Greendale.
pdf
Mpofu, A., 2013. Furore over cemetery. Chronicle, Retrieved 8 January 2014 from
http://www.chronicle.co.zw/furore-over-cemetery/
Murray, L., 2003. ‘Modern innovations?’ Ideal vs. reality in colonial cemeteries of
nineteenth century New South Wales. Mortality 8 (2), 129–143.
Narunsky, G., 2012. Cemetery land turned down six years ago. Jew. News,
Retrieved 20 October 2013 from http://www.jewishnews.net.au/cemetery-
land-turned-down-six-years-ago/26003
National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre, 2012. Ageing Baby Boomers in Australia:
Informing Actions for Better Retirement, Retrieved 7 January 2014 from
http://www.productiveageing.com.au/userfiles/file/ABBA3%20-%20lowres.pdf
Niţă, M.R., Iojă, I.C., Rozylowicz, L., Onose, D.A., Tudor, A.C., 2013. Land use
consequences of the evolution of cemeteries in the Bucharest Metropoli-
tan Area. J. Environ. Plann. Manag., Retrieved 8 November 2013 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.815607
NSW Department of Lands, 2008a. Sustainable Burials Discussion Paper – Fre-
quently Asked Questions, Retrieved viewed 16 October 2013 from http://www.
lpma.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0008/74546/Sustainable Burials FAQ fs.
pdf
NSW Department of Lands, 2008b. Sustainable Burials in the Sydney Metropolitan
Area: Discussion Paper, Retrieved viewed 16 October 2013 from http://www.
lpma.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0019/74125/10214 Burial Space for
web.pdf
NSW Department of Planning, 2008. New South Wales State and Regional Popula-
tion Projections, 2006–2036, Retrieved viewed 21 July 2013 from http://www.
planning.nsw.gov.au/population/pdfs/nsw state regional population
projections 2006 2036 2008release.pdf
NSW Department of Planning, 2010. New Definition of Capital Investment
Value. Planning Circular PS 10-008, Retrieved viewed 14 December 2013 from
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/planningsystem/PS%2010-008%20-
%20CIV.pdf
NSW Government, 2010. Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036. NSW Depart-
ment of Planning, Retrieved 14 January 2014 from http://strategies.planning.
nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/METRO2036 COMPLETE.pdf
NSW Government, 2012a. NSW Ageing Strategy, Retrieved 07 January 2014 from
http://www.adhc.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/file/0011/257276/1282 ADHC NSW
-AgeingStrategy WEB.pdf
NSW Government, 2012b. NSW Government Secures Crucial Cemetery Space for
Muslim and Jewish Communities. NSW Department of Primary Industries Media
Release, Retrieved 22 October 2013 from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/
assets/pdf file/0003/429510/NSW-GOVERNMENT-SECURIES-CRUCIAL-
CEMETERY-SPACE-FOR-MUSLIM-AND-JEWISH-COMMUNITIES.pdf
NSW Government, 2013a. Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney: Metropolitan
Priorities for the South West Subregion. Department of Planning and Infra-
structure, Retrieved 19 September 2013 from http://strategies.planning.nsw.
gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/13 Draft Metro SouthWest Subregion.pdf
NSW Government, 2013b. Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031.
Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Retrieved 12 January 2014
from http://strategies.planning.nsw.gov.au/MetropolitanStrategyforSydney/
Aboutthestrategy.aspx
NSW Government, 2013c. Rookwood Necropolis Draft Plan of Management. Depart-
ment of Primary Industries – Catchments & Lands.
NSW Government, 2013d. South West Growth Centre. Department of Plan-
ning and Infrastructure, Retrieved 28 August 2013 from http://www.gcc.
nsw.gov.au/south+west-22.html
NSW Government, 2013e. State Heritage Inventory – St Stephen’s Angli-
can Church and Cemetery. Office of Environment & Heritage, Retrieved
20 October 2013 from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/
ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045479
NSW Government, 2013f. Standard Instrument Local Environment Plan (LEP) Pro-
gram, Retrieved 19 September 2013 from http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/
LocalEnvironmentalPlans/StandardInstrument/tabid/247/Default.aspx
NSW Parliament, 2011. Full Day Hansard Transcript, Legislative Assembly, 20 June
2011, Retrieved 29 October 2013 from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/
Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LA20110620
 G. Bennett, P.J. Davies / Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 450–459
NSW United Turkish Islamic Centre v Liverpool City Council, 2013. NSW Land
and Environment Court 1150, Retrieved from 16 September 2013 from
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=166505
Pattison, W., 1955. The Cemeteries of Chicago: A Phase of Land Utilization. Ann.
Assoc. Am. Geogr. 45 (3), 245–257.
Pitte, J.R., 2004. A short cultural geography of death and the dead. GeoJournal 60,
345–351.
Prior, J.H., Crofts, P., 2012. Effects of sex premises on neighbourhoods: residents,
local planning and the geographies of a controversial land use. N. Z. Geogr. 68
(2), 130–140.
Randwick City Council, 2012. Ordinary Council Meeting Business Paper 24
July 2012, Retrieved 08 January 2014 from http://businesspapers.randwick.
nsw.gov.au/Open/2012/OC 24072012 AGN AT WEB.HTM
Rosen, R., 2009. Cemetery proposals rejected. In: The Jewish Chronicle
(online) Retrieved 8 January 2014 from http://www.thejc.com/community/
community-life/20996/cemetery-proposals-rejected
Rugg, J., 1998. ‘A few remarks on modern sepulture’: current trends and new direc-
tions in cemetery research. Mortality 3 (2), 111–128.
Rugg, J., 2000. Defining the place of burial: what makes a cemetery a cemetery?
Mortality 5 (3), 259–275.
Ruming, K.J., 2014. Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposi-
tion in Sydney, Australia: unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions.
Land Use Policy 39, 254–265.
Ruming, K.J., Davies, P.J., 2014. To what extent ‘an entirely new approach to how
planning is done?’ Tracing planning system reform in New South Wales. Aust.
Plann. 52 (2), 122–131.
Santarsiero, A., Cutilli, D., Cappiello, G., Minelli, L., 2000. Environmental and legisla-
tive aspects concerning existing and new cemetery planning. Microchem. J. 67,
141–145.
Searle, G., Bunker, R., 2010. Metropolitan strategic planning: an Australian
paradigm? Plann. Theory 9 (3), 163–180.
Sydney Catchment Authority, 2011. Neutral or Beneficial Effect on Water Quality
Assessment Guidelines. Sydney Catchment Authority.
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2011a. Business Paper – Item
2 2010SYW030, 28 April 2011, Retrieved 6 September 2013 from http://www.
jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/JRPP/getdocument.aspx?docid=2634
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2011b. Business Paper – Item 1
16 June 2011 – JRPP 2010SYW027, Retrieved 27 October 2013 from http://www.
jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/JRPP/getdocument.aspx?docid=3130
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2011c. DA-394/2011 JRPP
Report, 24 November 2011, Retrieved 29 August 2013 from http://www.jrpp.
nsw.gov.au/DevelopmentRegister/tabid/62/ctl/view/mid/424/JRPP ID/722/
language/en-AU/Default.aspx
View publication stats
459
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2011d. Minutes of the South
West Joint Regional Planning Panel, 28 April 2011, Retrieved 6 October
2013 from http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/JRPP/getdocument.
aspx?docid=2755
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2012a. DA-1133/2010 JRPP
Assessment Report, 01 June 2012, Retrieved 12 October 2012 from http://www.
jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/JRPP/getdocument.aspx?docid=6270
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2012b. Minutes of the South West
Joint Regional Planning Panel, 23 August 2012, Retrieved 5 September 2013 from
http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/JRPP/getdocument.aspx?docid=
6949
Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, 2012c. Record of Decision,
Retrieved 27 October 2013 from http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DesktopModules/
JRPP/getdocument.aspx?docid=736 5
Teather, E., 1998. Themes from Complex Landscapes: Chinese Cemeteries and
Columbaria in Urban Hong Kong. Aust. Geogr. Stud. 36 (1), 21–36.
The Carrick Group Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council, 2011. NSW
Land and Environment Court 1097, Retrieved from 7 January 2014 from
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=151537
Thomas, D., 1963. London’s Green Belt: The Evolution of an Idea. Geogr. J. 129 (1),
14–24.
1995. Threatened Species Conservation Act, NSW, Retrieved 10 October 2013 from
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+101+1995+cd+0
+N
Tropman, J.E., Erlich, J., Rothman, J., 2001. Tactics and Techniques of Community
Intervention, 4th ed. F.E. Peacock Publishers, Itasca, IL.
Varian, B., 2013. Zoning officials reject cemetery plan near Carrollwood Village. In:
Tampa Bay Times, Retrieved 8 January 2014 from http://www.tampabay.com/
news/localgovernment/zoning-for-cemetery-near-carrollwood-village-
rejected/2136324
Wimsatt, A., 2013. Board denies permit for Islamic cemetery. In: The Pio-
neer News, Retrieved 8 January 2014 from http://www.pioneernews.net/
content/board-denies-permit-islamic-cemetery
Woodthorpe, K., 2011. Sustaining the contemporary cemetery: implementing
policy alongside conflicting perspectives and purpose. Mortality 16 (3),
259–276.
Wright, E., 2005. Rhetorical spaces in memorial places: the cemetery as a rhetorical
memory space/place. Rh. Soc. Q. 35 (4), 51–81.
Zelinsky, W., 1994. Gathering places for America’s dead: how many, where and why?
Prof. Geogr. 46 (1), 29–38.