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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the area as a whole. The structure plan will determine block size and shape, thelocation of buildings, open space and vegetation, and the proportions and hierarchyof the street system. The architecture, which often has a much shorter life than thecontext itself, is resolved within this framework.The Institute considers that the Kogarah Town Centre is a successful demonstrationof how a well-defined context can establish the right framework for the design andconstruction of apartment buildings that meet the design quality standards ofSEPP65.Design Review Panels (DRPs)We note above the crucial role of panels in the development assessment process.This is another area, however, where the SEPP could be strengthened. The reviewhas revealed that only six panels have been formally constituted under the terms ofthe SEPP. In some instances SEPP 65 applications have been referred toIndependent Hearing Assessment Panels, in others to Planning Advisory Panels.In most cases these other panels do not focus on design quality and are notconstituted of people with design skills and judgment; therefore they cannot carry outthe functions of a design review panel. This weakens the SEPP 65 developmentassessment system, which relies on expert design advice being provided to consentauthorities.More critical is that the Design Review Panels can provide maximum benefit to theproject at the early stages, prior to the development application being lodged.A design review at this early stage of the project has the following benefits beyondthe improvement of design quality:• Increased certainty for the developer in the early stage of theproject – acceptable density, bulk and scale can be determinedin the early stages of the project;• Reduced assessment times – the application presented will beof higher quality and issues identified at the pre-DA can beaddressed as part of the application.We recognise the usefulness of templates and standard procedures as ways ofdelivering more consistency in the operation of design review panels; these reformsare of little use if panels are not created in the first place, or if advice isinappropriately sought from other sources.We recommend that the solution is to make design review panels a compulsory partof the SEPP 65 approval process. This would mean that the mandatory use ofarchitects at the design stage is balanced by expert peer review.We also recommend the creation of panels in those urban and coastal regions wherethere is considerable development pressure to provide design advice for:• consent authorities assessing SEPP 65 applications; for• Joint Regional Planning Panels; and the• Planning Assessment CommissionA ‘roving’ ad hoc panel system could service areas requiring only occasional advice.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20123
Design VerificationThe SEPP currently makes provision for design verification at both modification ofconsents and prior to the issue of construction and occupation certificates. Evidencesuggests that the current system of verification is the weak link in the SEPP. It ishard to control, patchily enforced and does not account for the vagaries of thedevelopment process with changes in owners, developers and architects.Changes in design via Section 96 applications mostly are not referred back to panelsand accountability during a project’s life is often diminished. The verification processneeds to be strengthened and made more accountable in the SEPP.The Institute is aware of instances where registered architects have been asked toverify the work of non-registered designers. This is contrary to the objectives of theSEPP and should be addressed in the review. The Institute suggests that‘verification’ be referred to as ‘authorship’ or a similar term.BRESPONSES TO REVIEW QUESTIONS2 SEPP 65 – General2.1 Should additional aims be added to SEPP 65? What additional themes shouldbe included?No2.2.1 Should the SEPP definition of residential flat building be consistent with theStandard Instrument?Yes2.2.2 Are there any additional criteria that should be added to this definition for thespecific application of SEPP 65? For example, 2 storey residential flatbuildings with a threshold number of apartments?Retaining the Standard Instrument definition and removing any thresholds keeps thedefinition simple and removes confusion. Additional criteria should relate toexpansion of the buildings captured by SEPP, which should include multipledwellings.2.2.3 Should the term ‘qualified designer’ be replaced with ‘registered architect’?Yes. The NSW Architects Act already establishes a simple, recognised definition of a‘qualified designer’.2.3.1 Should the application of SEPP 65 be broadened to other types ofdevelopments? What types of development should it apply to? For example,serviced apartments, lower scale medium density development, studentaccommodation or boarding houses?The SEPP should also cover boarding houses, student accommodation, servicedapartments and multiple dwellings. Some Councils treat holiday apartments as beingAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20124
Page 1 and 2: Australian Institute ofArchitectsSE
Page 3 and 4: Where does the Institute rank as a
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTSPageA GENERAL 1Guidelines o
Page 10 and 11: outside the SEPP when in specific t
Page 12 and 13: In areas of significant development
Page 14 and 15: 5.2 Would defining different contex
Page 16 and 17: A checklist would set a minimum sta
Page 18 and 19: example access to daylight and natu
Page 20: 8.2 Should controls be prepared for

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?