low rise medium density housing as complying development
TRANSCRIPT
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 1
28 February 2016
Building Designers Australia response to:
Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development
Who we are
Building Designers Australia (BDA) is the leading Building Designer Association in
Australia. BDA and its predecessors have assisted designers and industry across Australia
for more than 50 years. We are recognised as a proactive leader on issues effecting the
built environment and the building industry. Our members are highly skilled in the design
and documentation over a range of project types, with many members experienced in
larger residential, commercial and industrial projects. Building Designers Australia
recognizes the importance of continuing professional development and has conducted
an ongoing professional development program as part of membership since the late
1990’s. Further Building Designers Australia has recently introduced a National Mentoring
Program for selected student members together with Building Designers Australia being
actively engaged with University / TAFE / student liaison where courses in Building Design
are being delivered.
Building Designers Australia Overview of Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying
Development
Building Designers Australia supports the intent for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as
Complying Development but has significant concerns with the number of references to
SEPP 65 within One Part of the ‘Missing Middle’ Volume 1 – Discussion Paper November
2015 Options for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development as SEPP
65 in its current form precludes building designers from practicing on such SEPP 65
projects.
It is important that in order to achieve the outcomes sought by the expansion of
complying development to include Low Rise Medium Density Housing that design
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 2
documentation be prepared under the direction of a registered architect or an
accredited building designer with appropriate qualifications and experience in such
developments and that design guidelines be provided similar to SEPP 65 as part of the
expansion of Complying Development.
With ‘The devil in the detail’ any expansion of Complying Development will require the
preparation of design documentation that cannot be left open to interpretation in its
approval by a Principal Certifying Authority as the subjective assessment component of
development approval will not be available in the determination of the outcome to the
project.
With significant reference to SEPP 65 throughout One Part of the ‘Missing Middle’ Volume
1 – Discussion Paper November 2015 Options for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as
Complying Development Building Designers Australia has concerns that any expansion
to SEPP 65 would further preclude building designers from practicing in this form of
development proposed within the expansion of Complying Development particularly
when the paragraph below from the discussion paper above states:
‘The Apartment Design Guideline (ADG) applying to apartment buildings aims to
promote and guide high quality outcomes for residential apartment developments.
The expansion of the Policy to include medium density housing forms provides an
opportunity to promote design guidance and appropriate baseline controls for this
missing middle category of development. This Paper recommends that consideration
be given to the preparation of a Design Guide for medium density housing that would
support better design and a more consistent built form outcome for medium density
housing development in NSW.’
The words ‘The expansion of the policy’ is of enormous concern to Building Designers
Australia as it infers an expansion of SEPP 65 which defines a ‘Qualified Designer’ as
being a ‘Registered Architect’ only as being capable of designing SEPP 65 projects
thereby precluding builders designers. Any move to expand SEPP 65 with the definition
of ‘Qualified Designer’ being as currently defined would be vigorously fought by Building
Designers Australia. It would be the position of Building Designers Australia that the
definition of ‘Qualified Designer’ be expanded to include Accredited Building Designers
capable of designing and documenting projects referenced in the expansion of
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 3
Complying Development.
Australian Institute of Architect’s position
In support of the Building Designers Australia’s concerns regarding the push by architects
to restrict the design of a broader range of buildings to registered architects only we
include the following from the AIA’s submission to the Review of the Architects Act 2003:
1 GENERAL COMMENTS
1.1 The Institute acknowledges the intention of the Architects Act to provide
consumer protection and effective professional discipline. We note, however,
that registered architects are responsible for only a small proportion of buildings
designed and constructed in NSW. Although a majority of architects are
engaged in domestic work it is estimated that around 3% of domestic dwellings
are designed by architects.
Quality of Design Documentation
Building Designers Australia is of the view that if there were more controls around who
could, and could not prepare building design documentation there would be significant
gains made in reducing both the number and severity of building defects. The quality of
buildings would further improve and reduce the number of complaints raised over the
quality of buildings. A licensing/registration/accreditation system would guide the public
to make better informed decisions around who they engage to design residential
buildings. Such a system also provides a mechanism by which government can either
offer or enforce targeted, practical and meaningful training solutions. It also creates an
opportunity in the form of a big stick, which may be used against repeat offenders to
cancel or suspend their license or registration.
Current construction industry overview
With the extent of activity in the construction industry at this time, a limit to the number
of available tradespeople, any perceived quality of building will become increasingly
difficult to maintain as compliance with the National Construction Code, Australian
Standards, consent conditions, manufacturers product details will likely be less adhered
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 4
to, generating an increase in the number of building defects and thus complaints raised
by consumers which will be further exacerbated with the an expansion of complying
development to include Low Rise Medium Density Housing.
Review of the Building Professionals Act by Michael Lambert
In the circumstances that the construction industry finds itself in and with an expansion
of Complying Development to include Low Rise Medium Density Housing it will become
of paramount importance for the recommendations made by Michael Lambert in his
review of the Building Professionals Act be adopted by the NSW Government.
If the recommendations by Michael Lambert in his review of the Building Professionals
Act are not adopted by the NSW Government, consumers who are already bearing the
brunt of the significant failures within the property and construction industries will be
facing further failures within these industries and government if it does not act will face
a tidal wave of consumer / voter dissatisfaction due to its inaction. There is an
opportunity for the NSW Government to avert an impending disaster if it acts now.
It is understood that if the recommendations by Michael Lambert to the reform of the
Building Professionals Act were adopted it would see a return to NSW of six dollars for
every dollar invested in reform.
Proposed Complying Development Controls for Low Rise Medium Density Housing
Should the development of dual occupancies on a single lot as complying development
be permitted in R1, R2 and R3 zones?
Comment:
If development controls achieve appropriate design outcomes with respect to bulk,
scale and delivery of consistent neighborhood character with minimal impact upon
adjoining properties with respect to loss of solar access, privacy or loss of views or aspect.
Should the minimum frontage be reduced to 14m so that the construction of 2 dwellings
on a single lot can be carried out as complying development on more existing lots?
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 5
Comment:
Dual Occupancy or Semi Detached Development on a lot of 14m frontage is currently
feasible, depending on the built form in the local area.
Should the height be limited to 8.5m?
Comment:
Currently the complying development SEPP restricts the height of domestic building to
8.5m in height for standard size residential lots.
Should numerous lots of land be consolidated to create a larger parcel of land, then it
could be feasible to increase the height towards the center of the development with
the use of a calculated building envelope and building area guidelines.
Should attic rooms be permitted?
Comment:
Attic rooms could be permitted as a passive usage but would need to maintain visual
privacy to and from neighboring properties.
Should 2.7m floor to ceiling heights be imposed?
Comment:
Yes as this would be the minimum height to allow for the use of ceiling fans, and also for
improved amenity.
Should eaves and roof overhangs be required to comply with the envelope control?
Comment:
No the eaves overhang currently setout in the BCA / NCC has been and still is
acceptable.
Would the application of a 1.2m setback and no building envelope be easier to
implement?
Comment:
No a set 1.2m setback has the potential of creating bad design eg. 1.2m setback to the
8.5m maximum building height and a flat roof with no form of articulation.
What do you think?
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 6
Should Torrens title subdivision of 2 dwellings on a single lot be permitted as complying
development?
Comment:
Yes detached dwellings would have to have the minimum appropriate separation as
outlined in the BCA/NCC.
Attached dwellings would have to be designed to satisfy the conditions of being a
totally separate unit not relying on the common dividing wall to support both dwellings
eg. One side of the dividing wall should be capable of being removed without structural
damage or loss of weather protection to the remaining dwelling.
Torrens Title Subdivision would have to be lodged with the Land Titles Office
Should subdivision be permitted only after the buildings are completed?
Comment:
Yes. Subdivision can only be accurately completed when the dwellings are in place.
There needs to be a control over the developer to stop them from lodging plans,
registering the subdivision then on selling the two separate lots of land.
Which zones would be appropriate for manor homes?
Comment:
R3 and above would be appropriate.
Should manor homes only be permitted on corner lots or lots with dual street access?
Comment:
This should be dependent on the actual land size & surrounding built form.
Should manor homes on lots that do not have rear lane access be required to have a
basement car park?
Comment:
This should be dependent on the geotechnical, site configuration and access issues.
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 7
Instead of council certification of On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) and waste, could
certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided?
Comment:
Providing all the required design constraints are set in place for the OSD design then an
appropriately qualified specialist should be adequate for the design, inspection &
certification of the OSD.
How should the proposed car parking controls be designed to ensure that adverse
impacts on the transport network (including on-street parking) are minimised and active
transport options are encouraged?
Comment:
Car parking in any medium to high density development is always a problem due to the
lack of accessible, quick, regular & affordable public transport until this is addressed
there will still be an increasing reliance on private vehicles within the Sydney basin and
as the densities increase so will the current gridlock situation.
In which zones should the development of 3-10 dwellings be permitted?
Comment:
R3 and above would be appropriate.
The proposed controls do not permit the use of attic rooms. Should attic rooms in the roof
be permitted to be carried out as complying development?
Comment:
Attic rooms could be permitted for passive usage with appropriate treatments to
maintain visual privacy to neighboring properties.
Attics are also a good usage of available space that would normally be an unused void.
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 8
Is the building envelope necessary in this instance?
Comment:
Yes.
A minimum 2.0m setback already dictates a maximum height of 7.5 above ground level
before the building envelope would be breached.
Comment:
Yes.
As development is limited to 8.5m (2 storeys), is it necessary to also have an envelope
control?
Comment:
Yes a set setback has the potential of creating bad design as mentioned previously.
Is the building envelope control as proposed easy to apply?
Comment:
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 9
Yes it should not be an issue as long as an accurate survey has been carried out on
the site as part of the design concept and there has not been any illegal cutting &
filling of the site prior to the survey.
Should the proposed car parking controls be consistent with the requirements of the
Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or should the relevant council controls for
parking apply?
Comment:
The proposed car parking controls should be consistent with the requirements of the
guide to Traffic Generating Developments.
This will then create a consistency over N.S.W. rather than adopting a Council Control
that could change depending who is setting the Council’s criteria for parking.
Is it appropriate to permit excavation for basement car parking as complying
development?
Comment:
Excavation for basement parking would require the applicant supply a dilapidation
report of the neighboring structures, engineering details prepared by a registered
practicing structural engineer & a site soil, water & traffic management plan that would
need to be approved and supervised by relevant registered consultants in the fields of
soil & water management (traffic, hydraulic & civil engineers).
What provisions or controls should be in place and information required to accompany
an application?
Comment:
The provisions and controls that should be put into place to accompany an application
are those mentioned previously, ALL information supplied for the application should be
by registered professionals who are capable of certifying the works.
Is up-front certification by council for On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) appropriate?
Comment:
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 10
No - Councils do not seem capable of performing within time constraints and tend to
delay the works unnecessarily.
This work would have to be designed by an external consultant to the guidelines set out
in Councils OSD manuals.
The applicant should have the alternative of submitting their CDC application to either
Council or to a Private Certifier who would be responsible for collection of the design
information required from the relevant private registered consultants who would be
required to inspect and certify the works carried out on site.
Is it acceptable to have independent certification of OSD against council’s policies?
Comment:
Yes – See above
Should proposed waste management facilities be certified by councils as part of the
process?
Comment:
Yes – All waste management facilities should be certified and registered by either
Councils or another governing body.
Could independent certification of compliance with a council’s waste management
provisions in their DCP be the appropriate mechanism?
Comment:
Yes – Generally the person responsible for the design should be responsible for the
designs’ documentation and compliance with the relevant LEP & DCP requirements.
What proportion of new housing should be adaptable housing?
Comment:
1 in every 10 dwellings should be capable to be converted to be adaptable housing
with all new housing. Further new housing should provide housing options with
consideration to livable housing guidelines which will enable opportunities for a range
of homes for ageing in place.
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 11
How easy is the envelope control to understand?
Comment:
The envelope controls are very easy to understand and apply.
Is an envelope control necessary given the combination of controls proposed?
Comment:
Yes it is part of a combination of controls that allow flexibility in design whilst trying to limit
over development by certain portions of the development industry.
For development involving 2 dwellings, should the side setback control simply be
mandated at 1.2m for ease of implementation and assessment?
Comment:
No – This is a minor deviation from the normal in CDC especially with the 8.5m high max.
height, maintaining the envelope keeps all the CDC requirements in sync with each
other and stops vertical wall to a height of 8.5m.
Should the setback be 1.5m for easier BCA compliance?
Comment:
No – maintain a consistent approach to CDC construction through the development
processes.
Does the suite of suggested controls provide sufficient certainty of the built form outcome
and management of potential impacts?
Comment:
No – We believe there needs to be more consultative work done with a wider range of
industry professionals to ensure that all the bases are covered for medium density CDC.
Are there further controls that may assist in delivering positive outcomes?
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 12
Comment:
Yes – We now need to talk to engineering professionals with regard to fire, structure,
hydraulics, traffic and transport to be able to cover the CDC process.
Should guidance on dwelling size be provided?
Comment:
Yes – one of the main problems of is the over development of a site if the rules are too
lax then this will happen, if the rules are too tight it restricts creativity.
Are there other forms of supporting information that may be required?
Comment:
Yes – as noted previously there is everything from geotechnical to structural advice
required for medium density development to be placed in the CDC form, because
once it is approved it has to comply with Council LEP & DCP conditions, BCA/NCC code
conditions, Australian Standards conditions, Site and area conditions.
Are there other matters that should be addressed as conditions of consent?
Comment:
All of the above
General Comments
5.4 Summary of suggested controls for development resulting in 2 dwellings on a single
lot.
Comment:
The proposed qualifying and design development standard controls that would apply
to a development resulting in 2 dwellings are summarised in the tables below.
It is noted that the primary standards within the discussion paper below were meant we
believe to be reversed to that indicated.
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 13
Primary Standards
Minimum lot size 400m2
Minimum frontage
12.5 (15.0m) (detached form)
15.0m (12.5 m) (semi-detached form)
Maximum Floor Area
Comment:
It is considered that a maximum floor area control should be applied as reliance on
controls for site coverage, setbacks and landscape ratios determining floor area could
lead to inappropriate densities being approved which would adversely impact upon
local neighborhood characters.
It is considered that if density and floor space ratio is determined only by setbacks,
landscape area and height then in the instances below floor space could generated
over the parking areas as indicated in blue below. This would have an adverse impact
on the subject site and adjoining development.
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 14
It could be considered appropriate for maximum floor space ratios to be applied similar
to the NSW Exempt and Complying Development Code 2008 excluding basements
which do not by their creation create excessive bulk and scale.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT
CODES) 2008 - REG 3.10
Maximum floor area
3.10 Maximum floor area
The total floor area of a dwelling house, detached studio, basement and any secondary
dwelling on a lot must not be more than the following:
(a) if the lot has an area of at least 200m 2 but not more than 250m 2 -90% of the area
of the lot,
(b) if the lot has an area of more than 250m 2 but not more than 300m 2 -85% of the
area of the lot,
(c) if the lot has an area of more than 300m 2 but not more than 450m 2 -270m 2,
BUILDING DESIGNERS AUSTRALIA PO BOX 592 HRMC NSW 2310
P 1300 669 854 E [email protected] 15
(d) if the lot has an area of more than 450m 2 but not more than 600m 2 -330m 2,
(e) if the lot has an area of more than 600m 2 but not more than 900m 2 -380m 2,
(f) if the lot has an area of more than 900m 2 -430m 2.
Conclusion
With slight modifications to the development controls outlined in the discussion paper
for Low Rise Medium Density Housing Complying Development, the inclusion of a
maximum FSR similar to that within the NSW Housing Code, a SEPP 65 style pattern book
for Low Rise Medium Density Housing prepared by both registered architects and
building designers there is an opportunity for appropriate development outcomes to be
delivered.
Though in order for the expansion of Low Rise Medium Density Housing Complying
Development to be effective as complying development it will require an integration of
planning, construction and fair trading legislation in a manner that will hold accountable
professionals and trades as recommended by Michael Lambert in his review of the
Building Professionals Act.
It is critical that accountability be integrated into the delivery of outcomes sought and
this will require government and industry oversight to be effective.
A whole of industry approach will be required for such development being delivered
effectively and government should listen and work with the industry for effective delivery
to occur.