SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ...

In areas of significant development a single design review panel could provide advicefor Council DCP revisions and master plans relating to SEPP65 decisions and forJRPPs. Advice for non-SEPP 65 projects should be restricted to design issues, butcould refer to matters that cover a wider geographical area than a subject site.3.4 Should the meeting operating procedures for design review panels bemodified to promote consistency? Would a standard format for minutes andreports be useful? Should the meeting operating procedures for panels be setby the department or by the panel members and the relevant council(s)?There needs to be standardisation of meeting procedures, minutes and reports topromote greater consistency. The Department should provide a template prepared inconsultation with local government. Pre-DA meetings should be encouraged; thereshould be consistency between the recommendations made at the meeting and lateradvice provided by the panel. Currently most panels provide comment on each of the10 principles where relevant and incorporate RFDC issues under the appropriateheadings. An RFDC checklist may assist in clarity of advice along with the 10 designprinciples.3.5 What timeframe should apply to the provision of panel advice? Are therespecific ways that the timeframe can be reduced, for example requirement toprovide and finalise advice at the meeting, or use of a standard advicetemplate?Advice should be provided within two weeks of the panel meeting. Minutes andadvice templates will help to speed up the process.3.6 Should panel members be remunerated consistently? How should theoperational costs of panels be recouped? Should applicants pay a designreview panel fee per application, or a fee for each meeting where theirapplication is considered?Consistency in remuneration should be considered with the ability for review on ayearly basis. Other aspects that can be considered for outer metropolitan andregional panels with metropolitan representation is the charging of travel time, theone regional DRP in Hastings/Port Macquarie have agreed to charge the three tofour hours of travel time at half rates with Council paying for flights.3.7 Is there a need for the relationship between design review panels and otherpanels to be clarified? Would it be beneficial for existing panels to beexpanded to also provide design advice on SEPP 65 applications? Are thereother overlaps which need to be clarified? Should design competition juriesprovide advice in lieu of a SEPP 65 design review panel?See 3.3 above. A competition jury will not necessarily include a majority of architects(as required by the Institute’s competition code) and be skewed by developerconsiderations. Additionally a competition design may not be developed to a levelappropriate for SEPP 65 assessment. Winning designs should also be assessed by aDRP.3.8 Should the existing design review panel model be modified? What changeswould most benefit councils, applicants and panel members?Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20127