low rise medium density housing as complying development

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



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



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



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?



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?



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.



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.



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:



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:



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.



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?



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.



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.



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,



(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.

low rise medium density housing as complying development

Documents