PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA, NSW DIVISION SUBMISSION ON THE NSW DRAFT HOUSING CODE AND NSW DRAFT COMMERCIAL CODE

Transcription

1 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA, NSW DIVISION SUBMISSION ON THE NSW DRAFT HOUSING CODE AND NSW DRAFT COMMERCIAL CODE This Submission provides detailed comment on draft Codes following feedback from PIA members and a working session held at Canada Bay Council on 27 June 2008 which was attended by representatives from the Department and a mix of local government and consultant planners. 1.0 FORM AND STRUCTURE OF THE CODES Positive Comments An attempt has been made to include design principles to achieve better streetscape, articulation zones, garage setback and some key amenity areas. Procedures for nominated development types i.e. single storey, alterations to 2 storey should make it easier for mums and dads to know what is required. Provides consistency for the nominated development. Development standards are all measurable. Potentially reduces costs for approval compared to DA. Can be adapted into a checklist form. Other Comments Issue The Codes tend to be written for Experts viz Planners, PCAs etc and NOT the General Public. Suggestions/Questions Simpler four section format to include application requirements, control checklist, standard conditions and dictionary. Delete (or transfer to an explanatory note) all policy justification/ background statements and just concentrate on what is essential to administering the code. Use more tables/diagrams and less photos and art work. Flow Chart(s) would help the Public and even Professionals understand the process. The relationship between the Exempt and Complying Code and Councils planning controls in the LEP needs to be clarified As it currently is proposed many Council s exempt development policies are much broader than what is 1

2 proposed which could lead to more insignificant applications in the system. Metro-centric nature of the code which may have the effect of reducing the number of CDC s in rural areas Produce a variation of the code for use in rural areas perhaps based on BASIX Regions. 2.0 CONTENT OF THE DRAFT HOUSING CODE Issue Clarification is needed on local variations and at what level and by what process these will be able to be incorporated into the state-wide codes or Council s planning instruments. Suggestions/Questions Can local variations delete, vary or add Exempt or Complying Development? If current core standards eg site coverage and landscaped open space provisions, are more stringent than the proposed Complying Development Codes this creates the potential to undermine the character of whole suburbs. Implications for the current LEPs and DCPs. Minimum standards for complying development should not by default become minimum standards for noncomplying development. Streetscape (2.1) Provisions for maintaining existing streetscapes very poor/particularly in smaller communities with larger block sizes. Local variations need to be permitted in areas such as the Blue Mountains with large lot sizes to protect the traditional streetscape character. Height (2.2.1) 2.7m floor to ceiling height Ceiling height supported. Site Coverage Requirements (2.2.2) Site coverage requirements are very generous on large blocks. Definition needs clarification. Sliding scale more effective / suggest minimum 15m frontage on lots of 600m 2. Are driveways, decks and pergolas included in site coverage? 2

3 Landscaping and Private Open Space (2.6) Proposed minimum private open space too small for lots in excess of 600m 2. Difficult to interpret 25% of outdoor space within 15 degrees of north. Minimum area and dimensions should be increased to at least 40m 2 with min dimensions of 5m. Need minimum area of deep soil landscaping. Existing trees need to be protected. Complex Setback requirements (2.3) Great deal of confusion created with combination wall and window variations. Difficult to check window positioning when no survey of adjoining property required. No distinction between side and rear setbacks. Rear setback control fails to maintain separation between dwellings or preserve pattern of buildings, rear gardens and landscape elements. Front setback provisions may act to discourage urban renewal in transition areas eg Auburn. Overshadowing Overshadowing not regarded as an issue despite potential on sloping sites and some issues with building heights on boundaries. Sloping Sites (2.8) Requires more investigation and clarification. Sliding scales preferable. Have simpler envelope controls been considered? Survey or site plan with windows and location of private open space of adjoining properties to be submitted with application. Minimum rear setback of 6m? Local variations need to permit Councils to identify areas where setback provisions do not apply. Shadow diagrams could be required particularly if on sloping site/ shadow diagram to show that a minimum area of open space or 20% of private open space receive 3 hours of sun in mid winter. Needs to be acknowledged that it is very difficult to achieve solar access on site on the southern side of sites with an east/west orientation. Perhaps the equinox should be used as a more realistic measure of overshadowing. Where is cut and fill measured at? Need provisions for retaining wall on high side boundary? Clarify side boundary fence is at natural ground level. Consider exempting sites with greater than 10% slope. Front Fences and Swimming Pools 1.8m not acceptable to street/streetscapes devalued particularly in older town and country areas. 1.2m to front building line. 3

4 Swimming pools in front yards. Heritage Issues Encourages demolition in conservation areas without any notifications. Code assumes heritage value is only the front façade of the building not the building or its curtilage. Swimming pools in front yards should not be permitted as complying development because of amenity, streetscape and fencing issues. Exclude conservation areas. Stormwater Management The management of stormwater needs to be assessed on a case by case basis given the varying elements such as topography, current stormwater infrastructure in the area, location in the catchment etc. Unclear as to the basis on which developments require connection to stormwater systems. Disposal of stormwater needs to be specified in the application as do on-site detention tanks and s88b instruments over those tanks etc. Standard Conditions Standard conditions should detail sediment control, security of sites, working hours, OH&S etc. Exempt Development No Schedule 1 variations are provided for the exempt codes. No maximum number of outbuildings. Water tank exemption needs to be increased in rural areas to 100,000 litres. Does not address rural requirements eg farming sheds etc. Provision for local variations which would enable Councils to expand the range of exempt development. Need clause to limit incremental increases which could negate standards. State could be divided into BASIX like regions for the introduction or more appropriate exempt development. Definitional Issues What part of a wall needs to have an increased setback from the boundary if it has major openings? What is a fit out? Is a simple roof eave an architectural feature? Site cover definition does not include ancillary or incidental development. 4

5 Difficult site definition needs to be included. Excluded Areas Need to include visually sensitive areas and areas subject to landslip as environmentally sensitive areas. Also need to exclude areas where referrals required eg Main Roads. Blanket exclusion in bush fire prone areas needs review. Clarification in document that if any part of the land is affected by an excluded area eg bush fire prone then the whole piece of land is excluded. Other Issues What happens after the 10 day turnaround has expired? 3.0 DRAFT NSW COMMERCIAL CODE Most of the comments received by PIA have been in relation to the Housing Code however a couple of salient issues were raised at the Working Session and by members attending the Department s briefing which are as follows: A distinction needs to be drawn between the various forms of commercial and industrial development. There are potential problems with complying development where alternative solutions have been involved. There are also problems where part of a building is to be upgraded to meet BCA and DDA requirements. To date this has been largely a discretionary power administered by Council. It is suggested that the only way a complying development system could properly work would be if the application for a CDC was accompanied by some form of certification signing off on the parent building. Such an all encompassing certificate does not currently exist. Advertising sign provisions need review / in many instances they are less stringent than Council s existing policies and in one case they would seem to permit a proliferation of 6m high pylon signs by permitting each commercial premise to have one such sign. Problems arise when treating a change from a shop/office and vice versa as complying development when a change of BCA classification occurs. 5

6 4.0 IMPACT ON THE PLANNING PROFESSION There was a mixed response as to what impact the proposed expansion of exempt and complying development would have on the profession. Some felt it would provide a good grounding in the basics for junior planners, may create demand for a para-planning role and that more experienced planners would be able to concentrate on more complex projects and strategic planning work. Others felt it would lead to a greater need for compliance staff, rather than skilled planners and that there would be less of a requirement for strategic and environmental planners to create planning controls in this move towards a one-size fits all approach. The codes could also take away merit assessment and make development assessment a more bureaucratic process. One critical issue is that planners have been effectively excluded from determining complying development applications unless they have a BCA qualification. Given the skill shortage across NSW and the skills planners possess it would seem short sighted to exclude planners from the CDC process. A feasible solution would be to require that certification be provided with the documentation submitted at the time of lodgement, confirming that the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of the BCA. This simple up front certification will enable appropriately qualified (and certified) planners to issue CDCs and not exclude an entire profession from the process. Having regard to the 50% target across NSW it is considered vital that all resources be available to issue these CDCs. 6