Small Lots Housing Code - Australian Institute of Architects

Australian Instituteof ArchitectsSmall Lots HousingCodeSubmission toDepartment of Planning6 August 2010

Where does the Institute rank as a professional association? At 9,783 members, the RAIA represents the largest group of non-engineerdesign professionals in Australia.Other related organisations by membership size include: The DesignInstitute of Australia (DIA) - 1,500 members; the Building DesignersAssociation of Australia (BDAA) - 2,200 members; the Australian Instituteof Landscape Architects (AILA) 1,000 members; and the AustralianAcademy of Design (AAD) - 150 members.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 2010iii

Australian Instituteof ArchitectsSmall Lots HousingCodeSubmission toStanding Committee on StateDevelopmentNSW ParliamentAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 2010iv

CONTENTSPageINTRODUCTION 11. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLYING CODES ANDOTHER PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 12. SETBACKS 23. BUILDING TO THE BOUNDARY 34. ORIENTATION 45. MINIMUM LOT AREA VS MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 46. HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS 47. COMMON PARTY WALLS 58. HOUSING ALTERATIONS CODE 59. EDUCATION 6Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 2010v

INTRODUCTIONThe Institute welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposedextension of the General Housing Code and the introduction of a Small LotsCode.The Institute enthusiastically supports the introduction of exempt andcomplying codes in general, and the NSW Housing Code in particular. Thecodes are an important means of providing greater simplicity and certainty forcertain types of housing developments.We therefore welcome both the proposed extension of the general code toapply to lots with a minimum area of 300m 2 and a primary road boundary of atleast 10m and the proposal to introduce a small lots code to apply to lots 6-10metres wide and a lot area of at least 200 m 2 .We raise the following matters for the Department’s consideration:1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLYING CODES ANDOTHER PLANNING INSTRUMENTSWe note that the widespread adoption of the small lots housing code andgeneral housing code will be, in effect, to create new statewide minimumdevelopment standards for housing, as well as a benchmark against which toassess the effectiveness of new standard LEPs and DCPs. We envisage andsupport a future planning regime in which the Code SEPP provides the globalcontrols for certain types of development in an area, while DCPs providefurther detail on nominated site-specific issues. If this proposal is adopted webelieve that merit assessment of a proposal (through a developmentapplication) could then be assessed against the same development standardsas the Codes SEPP.We understand that the Department’s consultant has prepared a paper on therelationship between the codes and DCPs, as well as setting out a process forthe assessment of minor variations to the code. Similar processes arecurrently operating in other states. As these matters have the potential tofurther improve the effectiveness of the NSW development assessmentsystem we urge the Department to circulate this paper widely to localgovernment and the relevant professions for comment.We note the need to remove any conflicts between the Codes SEPP andLEPs, particularly in regard to LEP floor space ratios.The Institute supports the amendment of clause 1.18(2A) of the Codes SEPPin order to remove the conflict between the Codes SEPP and otherenvironmental planning instruments.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20101

2 SETBACKSThe Institute supports the principle of a stepped setback at first floor level.Side and rear setbacks, however, are a major area of concern. Whileacknowledging that the present minimum side setback of 900mm providesinsurance against development that could have negative solar access andprivacy impacts on neighbouring properties, we note that on narrow lots theeffect is to lose up to two metres of street frontage in ‘dead’ setback gaps. In aproperty with a street frontage of 10 metres or less this represents asignificant loss of development opportunity, particularly where development tothe boundary is a viable option (see No 3 below).For example, on an 8 x 30 metre lot with a site coverage of 70%, 15% of thesite is taken up with side setbacks. The amenity of the development would begreatly enhanced if this area was re-distributed into the landscaped area atthe rear of the house. Development could then have the flexibility to sit acrossthe site, providing the opportunity for rooms to be located with windows to thefront and rear – rather than the side, which is the cause of most privacyissues. The upper level setback of 1.2 metres for the house will also result inthe possibility that bedrooms on adjacent properties could be 2.4 metresapart. This problem could be solved by allowing the upper level to be built tothe boundary, resulting in rooms facing the front and rear of the site instead ofthe side.Figure 1: Both dwellings have the same floor area, but allowing building to the boundary on bothsides and over both storeys ensures that the dwelling on the right provides a greater area oflandscape at the rear and greater privacy to the adjoining properties. Both envelopes maximisethe permissible floor area.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20102

There is concern about the extent of the site coverage on the small lots. Abetter outcome that will enable greater amenity on small lots will be achievedif the site coverage is reduced to 65% and the landscaping area increased to15%. Flexibility on the side setbacks, as noted above, will make this easilyachievable.Concern is also raised with the maximum dimensions for outbuildings on therear lane; the 6.0m height limit and the 50m 2 floor area limit will not provide ahabitable space above the garage. The height should be increased to 7.0mand the area increased to at least 60m 2 . An increase in allowable floor areawill enable the development of a more flexible and useable living space.Of particular concern are side and rear setbacks on south facing walls, wherethe need for solar access is proportionately greater than for north facing walls.We consider that it would be relatively simple to devise a developmentstandard for an increase of the setback in these situations, linked to acorresponding decrease in floor area. Victoria has a provision in theirPlanning Schemes (clause 54.04-4) where the upper portion of south facingwalls is required to be set back further - a setback of 0.6m for every 1m inheight. This provision can be easily accommodated into the currentframework. It may be appropriate to limit the application of this provision to therear 50% of the site, to enable economic and desirable use of the land asdiscussed above.In response to the question regarding the possible simplification of the formulafor determining side and rear setbacks on Page 8 of the discussion paper, theInstitute’s view is that there is sufficient standardization in the existing formula,and that the existing formula provides flexibility while delivering the desiredoutcome. In our view any further simplification would risk abuse, andconsequently a negative effect on the quality of the built environment,particularly with regard to development with a height in excess of 6.0m.The Institute supports the code as a standardized, metrics-driven planninginstrument that aims to simplify the development assessment process; itshould not include anything that could compromise built environmentoutcomes. The code’s primary purpose is therefore to provide clear guidanceon development constraints for the use of professionals in the housingindustry; it is not a simple ‘how-to’ manual for owner builders.3 BUILDING TO THE BOUNDARYThe Institute favours building to the side and front boundaries of small lotswherever appropriate, particularly as these lots are generally on land that isclose to retail and public transport and space is therefore at a premium. Webelieve that encouraging this form of development will over time help to createdenser inner city suburbs, as proposed in the Metropolitan Strategy, that willbe the modern equivalent of Paddington, Glebe and Surry Hills.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20103

We note the need for flexibility in building to the front boundary to allow for avariety of approaches to development within a specific street or precinctcontext. A maximum of 900mm should provide sufficient leeway to allow forthis difference.A review of the minimum lot area requirements contained in many LEPsshould be undertaken so as not to unnecessarily restrict the creation of smalllots in areas close to retail and public transport.4 ORIENTATIONOrientation is an issue on infill sites. It is as important that the new propertymakes use of its position on the lot for maximum solar access as it is toprevent it from encroaching on the solar access and privacy of its neighbours.It is recognised that this is difficult in the framework of the complying codes,as requiring a certain orientation may be contrary to the specific siteconditions. However the Department should encourage good orientationthrough the implementation of education material (discussed in 9 below).5 MINIMUM LOT AREA VS MINIMUM LOT WIDTHThe discussion paper seeks feedback on Page 6 regarding circumstanceswhere some lots may meet the minimum lot area requirement but not theminimum lot width requirement. The Institute considers that the solution to thisproblem, and to the problem of anomalies generally, is to apply only one ofthe criteria to each code, i.e. minimum lot area applies only to the generalhousing code and lot width requirements apply only to the small lot housingcode.6 HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREASThe Institute is confident that many of the developments in these areas thatcurrently require merit assessment could be encompassed by the codes,providing advice is sought from a council’s heritage advisor (where thisservice is provided) before lodging the application. A sensible balance can bestruck between the statutory force of the code and the provision of freeinformed advice to guide the owner’s practical and aesthetic decisions. Thiscould be managed through a pre-approval process - in a similar way togetting approval for a driveway or s68 approval.Many low-impact developments could be handled in this manner, usingvisibility from the public domain as the key criterion for determining whetherthe proposal should be approved. We understand that in a SEPP the use ofsuch a discretionary term is difficult, and that further work needs to be done todefine this term. The public domain may encompass more than the view fromAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20104

the opposite side of the street. Views across intersections and to or from highand low points in and around the area may also be important.The aim is to conserve the area’s heritage values while allowing owners toupgrade the 21st century amenity of their properties.Minor developments that could easily be encompassed by the codes couldinclude:• detached outbuildings; and• attached extensions to the rear of the propertyWe note that Fig 15 on Page 21 of the discussion paper envisages a ‘lowimpact development’ to the rear of a dwelling; the degree of impact coulddepend, however, on its form, bulk and design. An attached extension of asimilar size on the other side of the lot may have far less impact.Because of their potential to raise complex issues requiring expertconsideration, the Institute considers that developments on corner lots inheritage conservation areas should require merit assessment through thedevelopment application system.7 COMMON PARTY WALLSThe Institute agrees that standards and regulation are essential to encouragedevelopment involving the use of common party walls, while minimising thepotential for neighbour disputes. We propose the following amendments to thedot points in the discussion paper.Consideration should be given to the procedures outlined in the VictorianBuilding Act and the notification and consultation undertaken with theneighbour.When undertaking work on a party wall the neighbour should be notified of theintention to carry out work, and the notification, information provided andresolution process should be regulated. Regarding the use of a surveyor, thesupplied survey plan should also be sent to the neighbour with a ten dayperiod for comment or objection.The structural certificate needs to verify that the structural integrity of the partywall will not be compromised, rather than just ‘affected’. The word ‘affected’can be interpreted in a variety of ways, some of which could be used toprevent acceptable construction.8 HOUSING ALTERATIONS CODEThe Institute considers that the dormer window specifications on Page 23 areunnecessarily prescriptive and may in some instances prevent creative andAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20105

aesthetically acceptable solutions. The specifications provided – in particularthe proportion of the dormer windows - seem to refer to inner-city Victorianhousing styles, which are not the most appropriate model for a SEPP withstate-wide application.One solution is to apply the specifications only to buildings constructed duringa specific period. A preferable option is to remove the specifications from theSEPP and include them in the guidelines referred to in 9 below.9 EDUCATIONThe codes provide a minimum standard to prevent negative impacts. Theycannot mandate good design.The Institute notes the effectiveness of SEPP 65 and its accompanyingguidelines in raising the standard of flat buildings in NSW; this success can beattributed as much to the educational effectiveness of the guidelines as to thestatutory force of the SEPP itself.In view of the codes’ application to a wide range of housing types we believethere is everything to gain and nothing to lose from an education campaigntargeted to professionals as well as developers and property owners.The education could cover areas such as:• responding to existing streetscape;• responding to neighbouring dwellings;• siting of the dwelling;• orientation; and• environmental and amenity issues, eg the benefits of good solaraccess.Some simple guidelines with illustrations of good design outcomes would be agood start, supplemented in time by a well-publicised awards program thatcongratulates owners in a wide range of local government areas fordevelopments that comply with the code while adding to the quality of the builtenvironment. In our view, nothing is better calculated to achieve greateruptake of the codes than publicizing the beneficial results of their use.The Institute would be happy to work with the Department in the developmentof any guidelines and education program to improve the quality of housingacross the state.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20106