Low-rise medium-density housing as complying development

Transcription

1 Low-rise medium-density housing as complying development Submission to the Department of Environment and Planning We provide these comments in response to the Department s discussion paper, Options for low rise medium density housing as complying development, of November We understand the core motive and feature of the suite of recommendations in the paper is to remove certain development proposals from the current arrangements of merit-based assessment and decisionmaking in favor of a code-based assessment and decisionmaking by private practitioners. The development proposals to be affected would be certain types of medium-density dwellings. If proposers of development for these dwellings did not qualify for approval against the standards, the proposers would retain the option of seeking a merit-assessment. In short the paper suggests a mechanism for fast-tracking assessment and approval of development that meets the code criteria, and for imposing more uniform design features for those developments without the messiness of market-driven initiatives or local governments development controls. A key risk in the recommended approach is a cookie cutter effect, in which design of the future dwellings could be neither diverse, imaginative, nor innovative. The authors of the paper have been careful to propose development standards for code-assessability that developers and the public (particularly neighbors) should feel comfortable with, by reference to current assessment practice in a number of councils and to established statewide processes including SEPP 65 and its Apartment design guide, and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. We agree that this cautious approach is probably a safer one, while noting that merit-based assessment remains as an alternative pathway for development that falls outside the proposed criteria for code compliance (State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008). Some of the rationales for the recommendations are not particularly convincing, like an expectation that more (such) dwellings would be developed and an expectation that Shelter NSW Working for a fair and just housing system Suite 2, Level 4, Sussex Street, Sydney Authorized by Mary Perkins, Executive Officer 15 January 2016

2 there would be greater diversity ( choice ) of dwelling types. The dwelling types referred to (attached dual occupancies, manor houses, terrace-houses, multi-dwelling complexes) are not prohibited, now. How the market responds, and the availability of land (especially in established suburbs of the state s larger cities, short of massive processes of site amalgamation and knockdown-and-rebuilds), are unknowns. It is possible however that a change in development assessment/approval process itself could stimulate the market in certain directions as has happened in the case of secondary dwellings, where the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP has encouraged this form of development, but not necessarily for lower-income households ( Granny flats and dual-key apartments surging in popularity, Domain, 8 August 2015, gir7gm/; 2015, when granny flats became flexible multi-function spaces, Domain, 3 January 2016, glv306/). We are also not convinced that smaller dwellings would lead to greater housing affordability on any systemic basis though small dwellings could reduce land and construction costs per dwelling with possible price reductions to initial purchasers. Fundamentally, housing affordability can only be achieved in a housing market like New South Wales through provision of dwellings at affordable price points, with subsidy retention. Otherwise initial cost and price advantages will be dissipated. In principle, merit-assessment is better than code-assessment. In principle, decisionmaking by an elected body of councillors with their technical advisers is better than decisionmaking by someone running a private-certification business. There are risks involved in a complying-development regime around the suitability of the provisions of the Code, and implementation of assessment and approval by guns for hire. As we indicated above, a safe way to manage some of these risks is a cautious approach to application to planning controls (and we are in agreement with the discussion paper s authors on this), and in particular a conservative, or precautionary, approach to what land-use zones the Code should be applied. We comment on some of the proposed planning controls for the 3 types of mediumdensity dwellings to be covered by the Policy, in light of the above perspective. 2 dwellings on a single lot (dual occupancies) Land-use zones (section 2.1). The discussion paper proposes that dwellings of this type not be assessable as complying development on land zoned R4 high-density residential, R5 large-lot residential, rural zones, and environmental living zones. We agree with these exclusions. The discussion paper asks whether dwellings of this type be permitted to be assessed and approved as complying development on land zoned R1 general residential, R2 low-density residential, or R3 medium-density residential. The land-use table in the Standard LEP Instrument indicates that attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings are currently permissible in the R1 zone and Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 2

3 attached dwellings are currently permissible in the R3 zone. Given this, and with implementation of appropriate planning controls for primary standards, design standards, and amenity standards (as discussed in the paper), extension of a complying-development classification to this dwelling type in these two zones could be relatively low-risk. However, attached dwellings are not currently permissible in the R2 low density residential zone, and, taking a precautionary approach, we recommend that a complying-development classification not be extended to this dwelling type in the R2 zone. Primary standard: minimum lot size (section 2.1.1). The discussion paper recommends a minimum lot size of 400m 2 for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development. It does so to establish some comparability with the minimum lot size for a single dwelling under the Policy (200m 2 ). We take this to be a cautious control, and support it on that basis. Design standard: building height (section 2.1.2). The discussion paper recommends a maximum building height of 8.5m for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development. It does so with a view to maintaining a low-rise scale of development and to minimizing potential adverse impacts from overshadowing and loss of privacy. We take this to be a cautious control, and support it on that basis. Amenity standard: privacy (section 2.1.3). The discussion paper proposes that a dwelling of this type should have screening on windows less than 3 meters from a boundary and privacy screens on balconies, terraces, and decks facing onto side boundaries, to be assessable as complying development. We support these proposed controls. Amenity standard: carparking (section 2.1.3). The discussion paper recommends dwellings of this type should have minimum carparking requirements as set out in the Roads and Maritime Services s Guide to traffic generating developments or in the local council s DCP, whichever is less. This makes sense on the basis of comparability with a single dwelling on a lot, and we support it on that basis. 3-4 dwellings on a single lot (manor homes) Land-use zones (section 2.2). The discussion paper proposes that dwellings of this type not be assessable as complying development on land zoned R4 high-density residential, R5 large-lot residential, rural zones, and environmental living zones. We agree with these exclusions. The discussion paper asks what zones manor homes should be permitted in as code-assessable development. The land-use table in the Standard LEP Instrument indicates that residential flats and multi-unit dwellings are currently permissible in the R1 zone, and multi-unit dwellings (but not residential flats) are permissible in the R3 zone. Given this, and with implementation of appropriate planning controls for primary standards, design standards, and amenity standards (as discussed in the paper), extension of a complying-development Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 3

4 classification to this dwelling type in these two zones could be relatively low-risk, and we support this. However, manor homes are in essence (and notwithstanding the definition in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006) a residential-flat building from any ordinary citizen s perspective a 2-storey block of flats with 2 flats on the ground floor and 2 flats on the first floor. And we note that residential flats are not currently permissible in the R2 low density residential zone. Taking a precautionary approach, we recommend that a complyingdevelopment classification not be extended to this dwelling type in the R2 zone. Primary standard: minimum lot size (section 2.2.1). The discussion paper recommends a minimum lot size of 500m 2 for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development. It does so to establish some comparability with a typical minimum lot size for a single dwelling under the Policy (200m 2 ; so, 2 single dwellings on a lot would be 400m 2 ) but with extra area to accommodate setbacks, landscaping and carparking for 3-4 dwellings. We take this to be a cautious control, and support it on that basis. Design standard: building height (section 2.2.2). The discussion paper recommends a maximum building height of 8.5m for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development as it did with dual occupancies (and as it does for townhouses/terraces and multi-dwelling developments). It does so with a view to maintaining a low-rise scale of development and to minimizing potential adverse impacts from overshadowing and loss of privacy. We take this to be a cautious control (and note that the control is less liberal than some DCPs provide for with merit-based assessment), and support it on that basis. Design standard: dwelling orientation (section 2.2.2). The discussion paper recommends that none of the units is to be oriented to a side boundary and that the front and rear of the building is to be perpendicular to the street. It also suggests that living rooms and kitchens not to be oriented to a side boundary. We support these standards. Design standard: carparking (section 2.2.2). The discussion paper recommends dwellings of this type should have minimum carparking requirements as set out in the Roads and Maritime Services s Guide to traffic generating developments or in the local council s DCP, whichever is less. This makes sense on the basis of comparability with the proposed requirement for dual occupancies and the existing requirement for residential apartments under SEPP 65. However, we recommend the control be amended to set no specific minimum requirement for car-parking spaces (whether for residents or visitors) in the case of manor homes located within 400 meters of railway stations/light-rail stops in innerand medium-ring suburbs in Sydney, Wollongong, and Newcastle. This amendment would give effect, in the case of these dwellings, to part of a proposal contained in the draft Apartment design guide of September 2014 but unfortunately was not included in the final version of the Apartment design guide (July 2015). Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 4

5 The discussion paper recommends that no visitor carparking be required for codeassessable manor home developments where only 4 dwellings are provided (p.27). This is unclear: does it mean a development containing 4 or less manor homes, or a development of a manor home of 4 or less residential units? In any event, with strata subdivision after development, each manor home would constitute a single complex (akin to a 4-unit block of flats), and there should not be a requirement for visitor carparking. The discussion paper recommends that councils should not provide on-street resident-parking merits to residents of units in manor homes where less car parking is provided (p.27). It is unclear what the benchmark is against which the number of resident off-street carparking is to be deemed less. If the development meets the minimum carparking requirement, and is in this (and other) respects worthy of being approved on a code-assessable basis, then future residents should not be penalized in this way. For example, for whatever reason a household might need more than 1 vehicle, the decision on an on-street parking merit should be determined in accord with the administrative provisions in the council s scheme (including compassionate arrangements), not with the bluntness of an environmental planning instrument. Amenity standard: privacy (section 2.2.3). The discussion paper proposes that a dwelling of this type should have privacy screens on balconies, terraces, and decks facing onto boundaries, to be assessable as complying development. We support these proposed controls. Other: The discussion paper proposes that the definition of a manor home in the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP be different from the definition of this dwelling type in the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP. The difference is about the number of units or individual dwellings this dwelling type might contain. In the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP it would be 3-4 dwellings, whereas in the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP it is currently 4 dwellings. We suggest that, to avoid confusion, this novel dwelling type not be defined differently in different SEPPs, and that the existing definition in relation to unit numbers indicated in the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP apply to code-assessment dwellings on a single lot (townhouses/terraces and multi-dwelling developments) Land-use zones (section 2.3). The discussion paper proposes that dwellings of this type not be assessable as complying development on land zoned R4 high-density residential, R5 large-lot residential, rural zones, and environmental living zones these are the zones where it also does not propose that dual occupancies and manor homes be permitted as code-assessable development. We agree with these exclusions. The discussion paper asks what zones townhouses/terraces and multidwelling developments should be permitted in as code-assessable development. The land-use table in the Standard LEP Instrument indicates that attached dwellings, Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 5

6 multi-unit dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and residential flats are currently permissible in the R1 zone, and attached dwellings and multi-unit dwellings are permissible in the R3 zone. Given this, and with implementation of appropriate planning controls for primary standards, design standards, and amenity standards (as discussed in the paper), extension of a complying-development classification to this dwelling type in these two zones could be relatively low-risk, and we support this. However, the R2 low density zone does not allow for these denser building forms, and terraces/townhouses are a form of row apartment (as indicated in the Apartment design guide, p.15) best suited to regulation under SEPP 65. Accordingly, taking a precautionary approach, we recommend that a complying-development classification not be extended to this dwelling type in the R2 zone. Primary standard: minimum lot size (section 2.3.1). The discussion paper recommends a minimum lot size of 600m 2 for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development. It does so to establish some comparability with a typical minimum lot size for a single dwelling under the Policy (200m 2 ; so, 3 single dwellings on a lot would be 600m 2 ). We take this to be a cautious control, and support it on that basis. Design standard: building height (section 2.3.2). The discussion paper recommends a maximum building height of 8.5m for dwellings of this type to be assessable as complying development as it did with dual occupancies and manor homes. It does so with a view to minimizing potential adverse impacts from overshadowing and loss of privacy. We take this to be a cautious control (and note that the control is less liberal than some DCPs provide for with merit-based assessment), and support it on that basis. Design standard: dwelling orientation (section 2.3.2). The discussion paper recommends that none of the units is to be oriented to a side boundary and the front and rear of the building is to be perpendicular to the street (p.37). We wonder whether the standard is overly prescriptive. Although it would only apply to codeassessable development of this type, not to merit-based assessment of such developments, it could inhibit innovation and flexibility in design, especially with infill development. We note that some architects are designing terrace housing oriented to side boundaries with a view to maximizing northern exposure or to maximize the number of units on a site. For example there is a development for terrace housing at Glenayr Avenue, Bondi, designed by Environa Studio: < which deliberately does not orient each unit to the street, and yet delivers a raft of excellent design outcomes. (We have no association with this company.) Design standard: carparking (section 2.3.2). The discussion paper recommends dwellings of this type should have minimum carparking requirements as set out in the Roads and Maritime Services s Guide to traffic generating developments or in the local council s DCP, whichever is less. This makes sense on the basis of comparability with a single dwelling on a lot, and for consistency with the other 2 types of medium- Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 6

7 density housing (dual occupancy and manor homes), and we support it on that basis. On eligibility of residents of these dwellings for council resident-parking permits, see our comments on page 5 of this submission (above). Amenity standard: privacy (section 2.3.3). The discussion paper proposes that a dwelling of this type should have privacy screens on balconies, terraces, and decks facing onto boundaries, to be assessable as complying development. We support these proposed controls. Feedback on options for expanding complying development to medium-density dwellings Page 7