expanding complying development to include low-rise medium ... · to include low-rise medium...

Expanding complying development to include low-rise medium density housing types

How community housing can deliver solutions to NSW’ affordable housing crisis NSW’ prosperity and future growth is limited by its housing affordability crisis. The growing disparity between income and rental price growth has resulted in a chronic undersupply of affordable rental dwellings in NSW. The National Housing Supply Council estimated that NSW had the highest supply gap rate at 89,000 homes. Faster and improved development approval processes for low-rise medium density housing types can, in part, assist with NSW’ housing shortage. What is community housing?

Not-for-profit community housing providers (CHPs) have been providing high quality rental housing for people on very low to moderate incomes for over three decades. Our NSW sector contains the largest, most accomplished, dynamic and professionally led organisations in Australia. With over 38,000 tenancies, our 27 leading organisations manage more homes than Victoria and Queensland providers combined. The sector has low rent arrears, minimal vacancy rates, and high tenant satisfaction. In the latest AIHW survey, nearly twice as many community housing tenants (39%) were very satisfied with their landlord compared to public housing (22%). Recommendations The NSW Federation of Housing Associations (the Federation) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on behalf of its members to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s (the Department) proposal to expand the range of low-rise residential development that can be undertaken as complying development across NSW1. The Federation and its members met with the Department last year to discuss exempt and complying developments. Our members highlighted how the current Development Application system is time consuming, inconsistent and generally cumbersome. The Federation generally welcomes the changes suggested by the Department with specific feedback offered below.

1 Individual member views may differ from statements made in this submission.

General improvements

The Department’s proposal to provide planning controls for medium density housing (known as the ‘missing middle’) will benefit the supply of affordable housing across NSW. There is a clear argument for allowing medium density housing as a form of complying development particularly in R2 zones. A faster and more efficient approval process will reduce development costs and circumvent restrictive regulations imposed by some councils. Given LAHC’s large numbers of deteriorating housing properties in R2 zones, the expansion of complying development approvals would assist with the delivery of affordable housing for the Government’s Future Directions initiative. Expanding the range development that can be undertaken as complying development will also provide more opportunities for the NDIS. At present, it is not clear how the number of dwellings required can be delivered under the planning regime. Allowing medium density housing as a form of complying development will assist in this process. There have been several instances where medium density government properties (transferred to CHPs) need to be sold in the long term. These sales are a result of poor redevelopment prospects due to community opposition. Although Council rejections to redevelopment are successfully appealed in Court, this process is both time consuming and expensive for CHPs. Applying the complying development framework to these transferred properties will have the added benefit of permitting low density affordable housing options that are widely dispersed across NSW, particularly in areas lacking an adequate supply of this housing type. The complying development framework will also allow areas to retain its social housing stock and offer its residents a higher quality of life. Higher density affordable housing developments can be more costly and in many cases, less desired by local communities. The Federation strongly recommends that the Department consider inclusion of relaxed complying development controls for CHPs when developing affordable housing. Development by CHPs is generally characterised by dwellings smaller than that provided by the private market. This increases our ability to comply with building envelope controls and/ or increase dwelling yield. Due to construction cost constraints we are generally unable to provide basement parking. Our experience is that providing less parking at grade, provides a better outcome which enables alternative designs. We would like these considered for inclusion in the new complying development controls and limited to developments, which will be used as affordable housing for ten years. This could be enforced by standard conditions of consent. The remainder of this submission provides further feedback on the following topics:

1. Dual occupancies (2 dwellings) 2. Manor Homes (3-4 dwellings) 3. Townhouses and terraces (3-10 dwellings) 4. Further issues for consideration

1. Dual occupancies (2 dwellings)

Table 1.1: Dual occupancy questions

What do you think? Comment

Should the development of dual occupancies on a single lot as complying development be permitted in R1, R2 and R3 zones?

Yes.

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?

Yes. The minimum could be reduced to 13.5 metres and still allow adequate space for vehicles, pedestrian access, waste and appropriate landscaping.

Should the height be limited to 8.5m? Yes. 8.5 metres will be consistent with low density residential areas. The number of storeys should be limited to two.

Should attic rooms be permitted? No. Attic spaces may create impacts and should require a DA to Council.

Should 2.7m floor to ceiling heights be imposed?

Yes. Minimum 2.7m ceiling heights are appropriate as provides living spaces with high amenity and good access to natural light and ventilation. However, special considerations should be given to developments proposed on sloping sites. 2.7m ceiling decreases the flexibility to deliver buildings specially designed for wheelchair access or adaptable dwellings. Greater leeway should be provided to ensure specialised dwellings are approved.

Should eaves and roof overhangs be required to comply with the envelope control?

No. The BCA provides adequate safeguards.

Would the application of a 1.2m setback and no building envelope be easier to implement?

Yes. The building envelope control is too difficult to immediately comprehend for most people and may require a designer to test. Controls for setbacks, building heights and, if required, building wall heights in metres with clear definitions will prevent confusion and enable early decision making in the development process –particularly as practitioners get used to the controls.

Should Torrens title subdivision of 2 dwellings on a single lot be permitted as complying development?

Yes.

Should subdivision be permitted only after the buildings are completed?

Yes. However, there should be no requirement for an additional planning approval post-construction. The subdivision (where sought) should be approved under the same application

as the design. In addition the conditions of consent must be carefully worded as speculative subdivision can result in unacceptable planning impacts which must be avoided.

Table 1.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for dual occupancy development

Primary Standards Control Comment on standard Minimum lot size Supported. Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 15 to 14 metres. Design Standards Control Comment on standard Maximum building height

Supported. Limit to 2 storeys in R2 zone. Permit attic space in R3 zone.

Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metres setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.

Minimum floor to ceiling height

Supported. Less than 2.7 metres not supported.

Garage/parking setback Not supported. This is excessively prescriptive and limits options for at grade parking and dwelling layouts. Parking structures should be permitted at the front building line provided:

• a ground floor habitable room window of at least one dwelling fronts the street and

• parking structures do not take up more than 45% of the width of the street frontage.

To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street. This will also allow for an additional off-street parking space.

Rear setback 6 metres supported for dual occupancy development. 25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey component only.

Minimum side boundary setback

Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites. 1 storey 900mm 2 storey 1.2 metres 2 storey 1.2 metres (BCA class 2 building) Do not include eaves in side setback requirement.

Minimum landscaped area

Not supported. Reduce to 25%.

Minimum width of landscaped area

Supported.

Minimum driveway setback

Not supported. Consider 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of development on narrow deep lots.

Minimum private open space

Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. Private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following rates: 1 bedroom 9m2 3m X 3m 2 bedroom 16m2 4m X 4m 3 bedroom 25m2

5m X 5m Minimum car parking provision

Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.

Subdivision Standards Control Comment on standard Minimum subdivision lot size

Supported.

Additional controls for dual occupancy development:

• Do not permit symmetrical/ mirror reverse building facades fronting the street. • For Torrens title subdivision of semi-detached dwellings prohibit non-symmetrical

subdivision of standard lots.

2. Manor Homes (3-4 dwellings)

Table 2.1: Manor Homes questions


Which zones would be appropriate for manor homes?

R2 and R3. Controls might be stricter for the R2 zone e.g. no basement parking and two storeys only at the front. The Department should consider permitting Manor homes in the R4 Zone on residual or isolated lots through a maximum site area control e.g. 750m2. This is appropriate where the height limit permits three storeys.

Consideration should be given to parking at ground floor with 2 storey constructions and limiting the height to 9m.

Should manor homes only be permitted on corner lots or lots with dual street access?

No. The impacts of this type of development on sites with a single frontage can be managed under complying development controls.

Instead of council certification of On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) and waste, could certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided?

Yes. Provided the specialist is an accredited certifier and subject to the Building Professionals Board.

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?

Where development is being undertaken by a Community Housing Provider for the purposes of Affordable Housing. The ARHSEPP parking rates should be applied.

Should subdivision only be permitted after the buildings have been completed?

Yes. Speculative subdivision must be avoided.

Table 1.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for Manor Homes

Primary Standards

Control Comment on standard

Minimum lot size Supported.

Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 15 to 14 metres. A high level of amenity can still be attained, particularly for smaller dwellings.

Design Standards


Maximum building height


Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metre setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.






To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street (allows for an additional off-street parking space).

Rear setback Consider reducing to 4 metres for single storey component of development. 25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey

component only.


Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites.

1 storey 900mm

2 storey 1.2 metres

2 storey 1.5 metres (BCA class 2 building)

Do not include eaves in side setback requirement.


Not supported. Reduce to 20% for Manor Homes.

Consider separate controls for soft and hardscaping.


Supported.


Not supported. Consider requiring 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of dual occupancy and manor home development on narrow deep lots.


Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following minimum rates:

1 bedroom 9m2 3m X 3m



The following minimum sizes are recommended for dwellings relying on balconies:



3 bedroom 12m2 2.4m X 5m

Note: These rates are more relevant to townhouse and villa forms of development.

Minimum car parking provision

Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with

paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.

Subdivision Standards

Control Standard

Minimum subdivision lot size

Supported.

3. Townhouses and terraces (3-10 dwellings)

Table 3.1: Townhouses and terraces questions


In which zones should the development of 3-10 dwellings be permitted?

R2 and R3 zones.

With decreasing housing affordability the Federation has called for 30% of affordable housing should be incorporated into development projects. This proposal is gaining traction across the sector which suggests complying development should be permitted in R2 and R3 zones that includes affordable housing. This would substantially assist CHPs in the delivery of affordable housing.

Controls should be stricter for R2 zones e.g. basement parking and attic spaces prohibited or introduce development standards which result in compatible residential character i.e. two storeys only at the front.

Instead of council certification of on-site stormwater detention (OSD) and waste storage, could certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided?

Yes.

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?

Yes. Only in the R3 zone.

Is the building envelope necessary in this instance? A minimum 2.0m setback already dictates a maximum height of 7.5m above ground level before the building envelope would be breached.

Building envelope controls are not necessary and difficult to comprehend.

As development is limited to 8.5m (2 storeys), is it necessary to also have an envelope control?

Side setback controls should work with building height and building wall height and be expressed in metres.

Minimum side setbacks should be vary depending on the location of the building on site. Buildings facing the street should be 0.9 metres for single storey, 1.5 metres for the second storey.

Is the building envelope control as proposed easy to apply?

The building envelope controls as expressed do not always work on sites with steep gradients. This should become clear if the Department tests the controls on sloping land. It is likely sites will be excluded from the complying development pathway while other nearby land is captured. It could also result in inconsistent side setbacks resulting in undesirable streetscape impacts.

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?

Where development is being undertaken by Community Housing Providers for the purposes of affordable housing and is within an ‘Accessible Area’ as defined by the ARHSEPP then the parking rates required by that instrument should apply.

Table 3.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for townhouses and terraces

Primary Standards


Minimum lot size Not supported. Consider reducing to 550m2.

Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 18 to 16.5metres to enable ‘triplex’ townhouse designs on wider single lots.

Design Standards


Maximum building height


Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metre setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.






To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street (allows for an additional off-street parking space).

Rear setback Strongly recommend reducing to 4 metres for single storey component of development.

25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey component only.


Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites.

1 storey 900mm

2 storey 1.2 metres

2 storey 1.5 metres (BCA class 2 building)

Side boundary setback for dwellings which do not face the street should increased to two metres.

Including eaves in side setback requirement not supported.


Supported.

Consider separate controls for soft and hardscaping.


Supported.


Not supported. Consider requiring 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of development on narrow deep lots.


Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following rates:




The following minimum sizes are recommended for dwellings relying on balconies:



3 bedroom 12m2 2.4m X 5m

Note: These rates are more relevant to townhouse and villa forms of development.

Minimum car parking provision

Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.

Subdivision Standards

Control Standard

Minimum subdivision lot size

Supported.

4. Further issues for consideration

Table 4.1: Further issues and questions

What do you think? Response

Is it appropriate to permit excavation for basement car parking as complying development?

Yes. However, the Department should have regard to the potential impacts when formulating the controls.

Is up-front certification by council for On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) appropriate?

Yes.

Is it acceptable to have independent certification of OSD against council’s policies?

Yes. However many Council’s will need to improve their policies to a consistent standard.

Should proposed waste management facilities be certified by councils as part of the process?

Yes. As an alternative to independent certification.

Could independent certification of compliance with a council’s waste management provisions in their DCP be the appropriate mechanism?

Yes.

What proportion of new housing should be adaptable housing?

Adaptable housing is difficult to provide on small two-storey sites. Where basement parking is provided, a lift or extensive ramping will be needed. Stair lifts may be appropriate.

Development scale

less than 6 dwellings no requirement

6-8 dwellings one

9-10 dwellings two

Site conditions

Sites with inappropriate gradients should not be required to provide adaptable housing. Some sites will not be able to comply with the Australian Standard without extensive design impacts or falling out of the complying development pathway. More testing with regard to design outcomes should occur before adaptable housing requirements are introduced.

How easy is the envelope control to understand?

This control takes time to comprehend and should be replaced by setbacks and height limits expressed in metres.

Is an envelope control necessary given the combination of controls proposed?

No.

For development involving 2 dwellings, should the side setback control simply be mandated at 1.2m for ease of implementation and assessment?

For dual occupancies setback control stated in metres is preferred. 1.2 metres is appropriate for a two storey Class 1a building facing the street or 900mm for a single storey building.

Should the setback be 1.5m for easier BCA compliance?

For class 2 Buildings (Manor Homes) the side setback should be 1.5 metres.

Does the suite of suggested controls provide sufficient certainty of the built form outcome and management of potential impacts?

Mostly yes. There should be more scenario and design testing against the proposed controls.

Are there further controls that may assist in delivering positive outcomes?

• FSR controls will provide more certainty in decision making early on in the development process.

• To encourage dwelling diversity, private open space controls should be refined based on dwelling sizes.

• ARHSEPP parking controls should be applied for affordable housing developments.

• Driveways which serve less than three parking spaces should not be required to exit in a forward direction (consistent with controls for dual occupancies).

Should guidance on dwelling size be provided?

Yes, recommended minimum sizes:

1 bed 50m2

2 bed 70m2

3 bed 95m2

Are there other matters that should be addressed as conditions of consent?

Where standards are relaxed (e.g. parking) application of a standard affordable housing condition of consent.

Public consultation for primary standards

Some consideration should be given to reduced public notification/exhibition for development that is specifically associated with NDIS or group home housing.

Primary Standard – Minimum lot size & minimum frontage

We are supportive of the proposal to allow two dwellings on a 400m2 lot within R1, R2 and R3 zones.

Complying Development Certificates (CDC) For developments proposed as a CDC, consideration should include an assessment by a qualified town planner who is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and who is also a Certified Practising Planner. This would ensure that town planners continue to play a role in development approvals.

Further options for the Department’s consideration

Dwelling orientation

The requirement to position dwellings perpendicular to the street should be reconsidered. Dwellings adjacent to the street should always face the street, however dwellings facing side boundaries are in many instances appropriate, particularly when they are single storey. Impacts would be better managed by requiring larger setbacks for dwellings with a side orientation. We recommend five metres. An example of this type of development in included in Attachment A.

Density controls

To improve certainty of development outcomes the Department should consider introducing maximum density controls (e.g. FSR) which are calibrated with the setback, landscaping and height controls. The ability of developers to anticipate dwelling yield outcomes during feasibility is greatly improved through the application of density controls.

Stormwater management

Sites that slope away from the road reservation and cannot readily achieve gravity fed drainage to the street network should be permitted to use pump out systems or a charged stormwater system. The requirement to obtain an inter-allotment drainage easement will often curtail low rise medium density housing developments.

Landscaping

The Department should consider including landscape controls and standards for replacement vegetation.

Triplex buildings (3 Townhouses or terraces)

The Department should consider ‘triplex’ townhouse designs on smaller lots. An example of this type of development is included in Attachment B. Reducing the minimum frontage width to 16.5 metres and site area to 550m2 would facilitate this type of development on a larger number of sites. This type of development achieves a high level of amenity for residents and neighbours and is compatible with the character of R2 zone.

Dual occupancies + secondary dwellings

The Department should consider the option of a dual occupancy + attached secondary dwelling complying development approval pathway. This is currently possible via a DA however these applications are being refused by Councils. This type of development is able to achieve compliance with Council’s DCP controls. Although similar to Manor Homes, this type of development should be applicable to the R2 zone or where dual occupancies are permitted. An example of this type of development is in included in Attachment C.

Recommended development standards are as follows:

Min lot size 500m2 Min lot width 15 metres Max FSR as per LEP Max secondary dwelling size 60m2 Torrens subdivision permissible Front setback 4.5 metres/ average of adjoining Side setback 1.5 metres Rear setback 6 metres

Summary The Department’s commitment to improving medium density residential development across NSW is welcomed by the Federation. These improvements will assist in effectively addressing the affordable housing crisis across the state.

Attachment A

These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission

Sydney

Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland

20.1

5

45.38

5

EASEMENTDRAINAGE COUNCIL

13.355

34.18

34.14

34.66

34.63

34.16

34.96

35.19

RL35.26PIT

INV 34.91

VERTSEWER

35.0

34.5

36.49

36.36

W

W

W

WW

W

W

W

WW

W

20.1

5

43.71

45.38

5

EASEMENTDRAINAGE COUNCIL

13.355

34.18

34.14

34.66

34.63

34.16

34.96

35.59

34.71 35.19

RL35.26PIT

INV 34.91

VERTSEWER

13.0

75

A13.1

6

35.0

34.5

35.5

35.5

36.0

1:200 @ A3

DA 602

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

DRAWING No:

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT No:

www.modedesign.com.au

E-mail [email protected]

Surry Hills NSW 2010

Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555

Architect R P O’Brien Registration No 7176

S h o p 1 35 B u c k i n g h a m S t 13076SYD

DEC 2014

LOT 36 DP35213

9 Rixon Street, Bass Hill NSW

FOR APPROVAL

UNITS 1-3

NO. 53STRICKLAND ST

NO. 7 RIXON ST

NO. 11 RIXON ST

NO. 53STRICKLAND ST

NO. 51STRICKLAND ST

ROOF BELOW

ROOF BELOW

ROOF BELOW

CARPORT BELOWAWNING BELOWCARPORT BELOW

ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW

BELOWAWNING

NO WIN

DO

WS

RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY

SHED2 0005 000

1 830

6 500

5 000

5 000

2 000

NO WIN

DO

WS

GULLY PIT

MANHOLE

BRICK RESIDENCETWO STOREY

BRICK RESIDENCETWO STOREY

RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY

SHED

2 000

5 000

2 000

2 0005 000

P. POLE

TEL. POLE

1 830

SHED

LOT 36 DP 35213

BALC

ONY

AW

NIN

G

BELO

W

AW

NIN

G

BELO

W

AW

NIN

G

BELO

W

R I

X O N S T R E E T

dominics

Rectangle

Level 1 unit 4&539280

Ceiling unit 4&542280

3000

3000

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y (a

t ve

rge)

METAL ROOF

FACE BRICK

GLASS BALUSTRADE

Ground floor unit 4&536280

Roof units 4-544120

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y (a

t ve

rge)

Ground unit 134630

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

METAL ROOF

FACE BRICK

FACE BRICK

METAL ROOF

Ceiling unit 338040

Ground unit 234970

Ground unit 335340

Roof units 1-340127

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SydneyShop 1 35 Buckingham St


Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555


Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176


PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:



17/12/2014 3:44:32 AM

1 : 100@ A3

STREET & REAR ELEVATIONS

SCALE 1 : 100

EAST ELEVATION (street)1

SCALE 1 : 100

WEST ELEVATION2

Ground unit 134630

FACE BRICK

METAL ROOFFACE BRICK FACE BRICKMETAL ROOF METAL ROOF

FACE BRICK

Ceiling unit 338040

Ground unit 234970

Ground unit 335340

Roof units 1-340127

Proposed RL 34651

Existing RL 34400

Existing RL 35200

Proposed RL 35190

Ground unit 134630

FACE BRICK

METAL ROOF

FACE BRICK

METAL ROOF

Ceiling unit 3

38040

Ground unit 234970

Ground unit 335340

Roof units 1-340127

Proposed RL 34356

Existing RL 34100Proposed RL 35240

Existing RL 35200



Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555




PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:



17/12/2014 3:44:35 AM

1 : 100@ A3

SCALE 1 : 100

NORTH ELEVATION1

UNITS 1-3 NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS

SCALE 1 : 100

SOUTH ELEVATION2



Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555




PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:



17/12/2014 12:38:41 PM

@ A3

PERSPECTIVE



Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555




PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:



17/12/2014 12:45:12 PM

@ A3

PERSPECTIVE

557

557

Attachment B

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

dominics

Typewritten Text

Ground Floor0

Level 12700

Level 25400

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

Ground Floor0

Level 12700

Level 25400

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

Sydney

These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission www.modedesign.com.au

PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:



Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010

Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555



9/12/2013 5:12:31 PM

1 : 100@ A3

ELEVATIONS

Ground Floor0

Level 12700

Level 25400

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

YS

ITE B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

Ground Floor99200

Level 1101900

Level 2104600

Sydney


PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555



9/12/2013 5:12:43 PM

1 : 100@ A3

ELEVATIONS

Sydney


PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555



9/12/2013 5:12:44 PM

@ A3

PERSPECTIVE

5 500

7 000

DP 36202 LOT 27

DP 36202 LOT 24

DP 36202 LOT 38

SETBACK

SETBACK

STANDARD PROVIDED

DP 36202 LOT 36


Sydney


33.71

33.56

33.39

33.89

35.42

34.89

34.41

34.10

35.14

34.89

34.01

34.76

33.21

32.88

35.26

W

W W W

W

44.195

15.5

45

44.195

15.5

45

FIBRO RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY

SKYTUBE

SKYTUBE

34.10

34.89

FFL 34.23

34.23

34.23

34.23

34.23

34.23

FFL 34.28

34.23

RWT

RWT

RW

TR

WT

1:200 @ A3

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FLOOR PLANS

1

1

687m†Site Area

104m†

Min 450m† 687m†

279m†

mid-winter3hrs 9am-3pm 70% of Dwellings:

Dwelling=140Min 35m† per 290m†

=101m†15% Site Area

v

2 Spaces

(or 2 Spaces)1.0 per 3 Bed0.5 per 2 Bed0.4 per 1 Bed

3 Bed 95m† 2 Bed 70m† 1 Bed 50m†

3 Bed 104m†1 Bed 58m†

LOT 37 on DP 36302

58m†

UNIT A (3 BED)

1 58m†

UNIT B (3 BED) 1 104m†

UNIT C (1 BED)

UNIT D (1 BED)

8 ISAAC ST

DD 501 REV 03

NET 324m†

DRAWING No:

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555

Architect R P O’Brien Registration No 7176

S h o p 1 35 B u c k i n g h a m S t 13076SYD

8 ISAAC Street, Peakhurst NSW SEPT 2014

I S A A C S T R E E T

ACCOMMODATION SCHEDULE

UNIT AREANO.

TOTAL GFA

0.51FSR

350m†

AHSEPP STANDARDS

SITE AREA

LANDSCAPED AREA

DEEP SOIL ZONES

SOLAR ACCESS

PARKING

DWELLING SIZE

1 200

1 200

NO. 10 ISAAC ST

NO. 6 ISAAC ST

UNIT ABED1

BED1

1:12 DRIVEWAY

UNIT D

REQUIREMENTCOUNCIL’S CROSSOVER TO NEW DRIVEWAY

UNIT C

DETAILSDRAWINGS FOR REFER TO LANDSCAPE FFL 34.28

104M†3 BED

FFL 34.28UNIT B

104M†3 BED

SHED

FIBRO GARAGEMETAL SHED

P.O.S.

UNIT D

UNIT A

UNIT B

UNIT C

BED2

BED3

BED3

BED2

BALC.

BALC.

TO COMPLY WITH BCAFIRE RATING TO FLOOR

58M†1 BED

FFL 37.28

58M†1 BED

FFL 37.28

BED 1

BED 1FFL 37.28

FFL 37.28

SHED

FIBRO GARAGEMETAL SHED

BINS

LD’Y

LD’Y/WC

LD’Y/WC

LD’Y

BINS

STO

RE

CONC. PATH

CONC. PATH

LB

LB

CONC.

TERRACE

TERRACE

STO

RE

STO

RE

STO

RE

17 800

3 900 2 350 2 350

13 100

6 550

6 550

3 150

3 000

LIN

LIN

3 150

3 000

AWNING BELOW

AWNING BELOW

3 000

3 150

5 400 1 6002001 934 6 000GARAGE

3 200

3 373

6 550

7 773

16 400

3 400

7 700

4 400

5 3004 000 5 600

13 100

4 572

Attachment C

Ground Floor34.280

Level 137.280

Ceiling39.980

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

SETBACK

1200

SETBACK

1200

2700

3000

TILE ROOF

WEATHERBOARD CLADDING

FACE BRICK

ALUM. SCREENS TOBIN STORE

LETTERBOXES

HT 42.495

DP DP

METAL BALUSTRADE WITH GLASS PANELS

1800 ALUMINIUMFENCE AND GATE

1200

2300

GA

RA

GE

1000

1100

2100

1100

1000

18.00°

TYPICAL ENTRY DOOR WITHOBSCURE GLASS PLUS SIDELIGHTWITH OBSCURE GLASS

I

Ground Floor34.280

Level 137.280

Ceiling39.980

SIT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y SETBACK

5500

3000

2700

HT 42.495

ALUMINIUM PERGOLA WITHAWNING OVER ENTRY

BIN STORE

FACE BRICK

TILE ROOF

1000

1100

1000

1100

DP

DP

DPDP

1800mm HIGH COLORBOND FENCEON BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED

COLORBOND FENCE

1100

1000

600

1500

600

1800

600

1500 21

00

ALUMINIUM SUN SHADE

STORAGE ACCESS

NOTES:

-

Sydney


PROJECT No:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555


Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176 REVISION No:

5/09/2014 10:28:01 AM

1 : 100@ A3

ELEVATIONS

SCALE 1 : 100

North Elevation

SCALE 1 : 100

West Elevation

Sydney


PROJECT No:DATE:SCALE:DRAWING No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555E-mail [email protected]


8/09/2014 5:38:25 PM

@ A3

PERSPECTIVE

Sydney


PROJECT No:DATE:SCALE:DRAWING No:




Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555E-mail [email protected]


8/09/2014 5:38:49 PM

@ A3

PERSPECTIVE

expanding complying development to include low-rise medium ... · to include low-rise medium...

Documents