The provisions assessment on Rico makes it easier to assess statutory document provisions like Matters, Assessment Criteria, Objectives and Policies. We’ve noticed this can lead to some planners choosing to craft their assessments differently in Rico. In particular, what assessment is included under the provisions assessment versus the assessment of environmental effects. There’s no ‘correct’ approach, but we’ve listed a few rules of thumb below for guidance: Where provisions direct you to more specific considerations (often the case with Matters and Assessment Criteria), commenting directly against these provisions can make assessments clearer. Where an application is for controlled or restricted discretionary activities , including the relevant provisions can make the scope of the assessment clearer as the effects that can be considered are restricted. Where a proposal contains more activities that have overlapping provisions (i.e. multiple provisions addressing the same considerations) it’s better to assess effects more generally to avoid repetition and incohesive assessments. Where a proposal is discretionary or non-complying (Note #1) , providing assessments directly against relevant objectives and policies can provide additional clarity and confidence as to how the proposal is consistent with provisions. Where a proposal is discretionary or non-complying (Note #2) , a general effects assessment is typically favoured as there is no restriction on the scope of this assessment and effects tend to be considered more widely than what is directly provided for in the plan. If you’re interested, it’s worth experimenting along these lines as this can save time and help make your assessments clearer, both to create and to assess after.