Building Designers Australia Overview of Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development

Transcription

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 1

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 2

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 3

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? 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? 4

5 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 5

6 Should Torrens title subdivision of 2 dwellings on a single lot be permitted as complying development? 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? 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? R3 and above would be appropriate. Should manor homes only be permitted on corner lots or lots with dual street access? 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? This should be dependent on the geotechnical, site configuration and access issues. 6

7 Instead of council certification of On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) and waste, could certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided? 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? 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? 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? 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. 7

8 Is the building envelope necessary in this instance? Yes. A minimum 2.0m setback already dictates a maximum height of 7.5 above ground level before the building envelope would be breached. Yes. As development is limited to 8.5m (2 storeys), is it necessary to also have an envelope control? Yes a set setback has the potential of creating bad design as mentioned previously. Is the building envelope control as proposed easy to apply? 8

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? 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? 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? 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? 9

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? Yes See above Should proposed waste management facilities be certified by councils as part of the process? 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? 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? 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. 10

11 How easy is the envelope control to understand? The envelope controls are very easy to understand and apply. Is an envelope control necessary given the combination of controls proposed? 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? 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? 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? 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? 11

12 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? 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? 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? All of the above General Comments 5.4 Summary of suggested controls for development resulting in 2 dwellings on a single lot. 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. 12

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 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. 13

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) 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, 14

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. 15