ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
dwelling (terraces) (under one complying development certificate). However, the subdivision cannot be registered until the occupation certificate of the dwelling has been issued.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
The complying development process would no longer include these factors within the assessment process, potentially resulting in poor quality developments with inappropriate impacts on adjacent properties and their character. The Codes SEPP will only require one assessment officer (a private certifier) to provide a detailed assessment on complex development scenarios, surrounding medium density. The complying development process will also remove neighbour notification for these types of developments and cause confusion in the community over development approvals and will require Council time to investigate issues and rectify any concerns.
Two examples of complying developments where Council has had the responsibility to rectify problems caused by private certifiers issuing Complying Development Certificates (CDC) are presented below. The first example is of an outbuilding that was approved through development standards under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and the second is for class rooms constructed for St Michael’s Primary where the was approved through development standards of the Infrastructure SEPP. Both examples represent how amenity and quality of life can be affected by the eroding local controls:
Example One: Property on Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford
The first example where the disregard for local controls has occurred, is at property on Pennant Hills Road in Carlingford. A Complying Development Certificate (CDC) was issued originally for the development as an ‘outbuilding’ (with minimal side and rear setbacks). However, following the issue of the Occupation Certificate, a further Complying Development Certificate was issued for the conversion of the outbuilding into a granny flat. It is noted that whilst these setbacks complied with the setback requirements for outbuildings, they did not comply with the setbacks for dwellings and granny flats.
The issuing of the CDC for the outbuilding was reliant upon an exemption from setback requirements that applies to new buildings as detailed in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The outbuilding was always intended to be a secondary dwelling and the initial approval of the outbuilding was a way to circumvent the setback requirements of a secondary dwelling.
The development of converting the outbuilding to a granny flat development satisfied the relevant complying development provisions through a loop hole, and was not a technical breach the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP or the Codes SEPP. However, the sole losers were the adjoining land owners and residents where amenity, local character and quality of life has been affected by the eroded standards available under State Government Policy.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
Example Two: Saint Michael’s Primary School, Baulkham Hills
Another example of a Complying Development that has imposed on the existing local character is building works undertaken at St. Michaels Primary School, Baulkham Hills for the construction of a new classroom building. The works were approved under the Infrastructure SEPP and were carried out under a Complying Development Certificate in November 2015.
The Complying Development Certificate was issued by a private certifier as the proposed works were deemed to meet the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. As the works were approved under this pathway Council was not part of, or responsible for, the decision. Adjoining residents notified Council about their concerns with the visual impact of the works being undertaken when viewed from their property. Residents were concerned that the works were impedingly visible and impacted on the privacy of their backyard.
Council then had to assist the residents in providing measures that the land owners could take to improve the visual separation between the building works and the adjoining residential properties.
As pictured above it is clear that privacy impacts were not considered during the complying development assessment process. Additionally, there is no requirement under the Infrastructure SEPP that deals with privacy or amenity impacts on adjoining properties.
Recommendation:
Medium density developments are often complex and deal with many planning and design issues. It is inappropriate for accredited Private Certifiers (who have a niche area of expertise) to have the ability to approve dual occupancies, multi- dwelling (terraces) and manor houses. Medium density should be excluded from the Codes SEPP and only assessed through a Development Application pathway.
b) Impact on Existing Local Character
Council has previously seen the disregard for local controls and erosion of local planning policy through the gradual implementation of provisions through the Codes SEPP, Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, Seniors Housing SEPP and Growth Centres SEPP (Housing Diversity). A ‘one size fits all’ approach has been undertaken with the proposed changes to Codes SEPP that will apply to medium density housing types across all of New South Wales, whether it is inner-city suburbs, outer ring suburbs or regional towns.
Over time, Council has developed a number of Development Control Plans (DCP’s) that apply to different types of built forms and areas within The Hills. These plans have been prepared with considerable site analysis, planning and strategic context, consideration of the local character and consultation with the community and stakeholders. The DCP’s are based on a qualitative assessment of an area, are considered comprehensive in appropriately managing future development of an area and achieve appropriate development outcomes.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
The proposed development standards within the Codes SEPP and design guide are general, apply to the whole of the state of NSW and undermine existing DCP controls.
The introduction of medium density as complying development would seriously affect the existing built form outcomes of existing single dwellings, garden character and overall streetscapes of The Hills Shire.
The proposed controls under the Codes SEPP for dual occupancies, multi-dwelling (terraces) and manor houses would result in development outcomes that would not reflect the intended built form of Council’s controls. Examples of poor outcomes are provided below:
i. Dual Occupancy
The minimum site size is required to be the same as what is required in the LEP.
The Codes SEPP proposes a floor space ratio of 0.6:1. However, Council’s DCP requires a floor space ratio of 0.5:1. This inconsistency would create dual occupancies constructed as complying development to greater mass and scale than what is expected in existing low density areas; and
The Codes SEPP proposes a minimum landscape area of 35% which is lower than Council’s landscaping control of 50%. Complying development would provide less green areas and developments that do not contribute to streetscape, amenity and local character.
ii. Multi-Dwelling Housing (Terraces)
The proposed changes within the Code introduce a new building typology (multi- dwelling terraces) in The Hills. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the built form against Council’s existing multi-dwelling controls. Proposed multi-dwelling developments are required to meet with Part 3.2 of the draft Medium Density Design Guide, which requires each dwelling to have a primary open space of at least 16m2.
Council requires multi-dwelling housing developments to provide a minimum of 50% of the floor space as private open space. DCP controls also require the provision of 37.5m2 of private open space for one bedroom dwellings, 55m2 for two bedroom dwellings and 67.5m2 for three bedroom dwelling. When compared to the controls proposed within the Codes SEPP (16m2 for all dwelling sizes), there is a significant inconsistency with Council’s existing approach and concern with providing appropriate and sufficient private open spaces.
iii. Manor Houses
The proposed development standards in the Codes SEPP for manor houses will ultimately introduce a built form that does not represent the character intended for R3 Medium Density Residential zones. The interference with Council’s zone hierarchy is discussed later in c) ‘Impact on Council’s Hierarchy’. The built form would not respect or be compatible with existing medium locations, create privacy impacts and would not align with the expected amenity and character.
The proposed changes require at least one car space to be provided per dwelling.
No controls are provided in respect to the location and arrangement of parking spaces. This may result poor visual outcome such as multiple vehicle access points such as garages or driveways on a single street frontage, removing opportunity for landscaping or other amenity measures.
The built form outcomes of manor houses are therefore more suited to corner blocks given there is more frontages to accommodate the necessary areas needed for car spaces and garages.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
Recommendation:
The proposed changes will apply state-wide standards that have limited consideration for a council’s local strategic intentions or DCP controls. A blanket approach to density and development types will not facilitate a positive outcome for the community or ensure density is located in the right place with adequate access to services and facilities.
The implementation of additional complying development provisions to medium and high density development demonstrates a disregard for locally prepared controls and will be inconsistent with the local character established by local planning. The approach of achieving increased complying development through the reduction in design standards is not supported.
Should the Codes SEPP amendments proceed they should be tailored to align with local values and strategic principles prescribed within Council’s adopted planning framework.
Should manor houses be introduced in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone it is recommended that these outcomes are only permissible on corner blocks.
Introducing manor houses on corner blocks would reflect a better streetscape outcome and reduce privacy issues on adjoining residential lots. This would also align with what is already required under the Growth Centres SEPP where manor houses are restricted to corner blocks.
c) Impact on Council’s Zone Hierarchy System
Council’s zone hierarchy approach has been established as part of the strategic framework within the Local Strategy to provide the strategic planning context for residential development and infrastructure provisions for low, medium and high density residential developments. The hierarchical approach appropriately places high density residential within or adjacent to centres and locations with good access to public transport, recreational spaces and local services and amenity.
The Codes SEPP proposes the construction of a dual occupancy or multi-dwelling housing (terraces) as complying development where, the land use is permitted in the zone.
However, as ‘manor houses’ are a new land use term it is proposed that the Standard Instrument LEP be amended to include the development type. It is proposed that the development type would be implemented in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and R1 General Residential zone where ‘multi-dwelling housing’ and ‘residential flat buildings are permitted.
The introduction of ‘Manor House’ as a form of complying development within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone will introduce a built form that is essentially a two storey residential flat building rather than a traditional medium density housing type.
For a site that meets the 600m2 minimum size as identified in the SEPP, a manor home development would facilitate a more than double the density planned for under Council’s infrastructure plans. The manor house product is therefore not an appropriate outcome for this zone and would undermine Council’s zone hierarchy approach and strategic planning framework.
This use is more appropriate in the R4 High Density Residential zone, and if the use is to be included as complying development, a preferred outcome would be restricting it to corner lots within the R4 High Density Residential zone and R1 General Residential zones.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
Recommendation:
Allowing medium density type development to be undertaken as Complying Development throughout the R2 Low Density Residential zone would undermine Council’s hierarchical approach and result in loss of distinction between the zones and their effectiveness as intended by their objectives in the LEP.
Objection is raised to the introduction of manor houses as complying development. The introduction of this development type will result in significant impacts being privacy issues, inconsistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and have negative impacts on the character of an area with no mechanism to address or resolve them. It is therefore recommended that manor houses be not permissible within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.
Should manor houses be included as complying development they should be restricted to the R4 High Density Residential zone and R1 General Residential zones.
d) Subdivision as Complying Development
The proposed changes to the Codes SEPP proposes minimum lot sizes that are significantly lower than Council’s existing standards. The proposed minimum lot sizes would create medium and high density development outcomes on sites significantly smaller than under Council’s LEP 2012.
Council requires a minimum site area of 1800m2 for multi-dwelling housing. This is to ensure master planned outcomes that provide sufficient private open space, common open space, setbacks, parking provision and high quality landscaping outcomes are achieved.
The proposed changes within the Codes SEPP do not identify a requirement for minimum parent lot area and would permit medium and high density housing on sites significantly smaller than identified in Council’s controls. The provisions within the Codes SEPP would effectively override local planning policy and will allow for smaller ad-hoc developments that do not provide the necessary amenity or streetscape outcomes.
The proposed changes to the Codes SEPP will also permit subdivision of both (torrens and strata) of dual occupancies as complying development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Under Council’s LEP 2012 the subdivision of dual occupancies is prohibited. This control has been in force since 1996 and was implemented to address infrastructure implications arising from unplanned growth and additional residential densities in areas where single dwelling houses were expected. Since this time the control has been successful in maintaining the character and infrastructure capacity of the Shire’s low density zones. Given the foregoing the proposed change to permit subdivision of dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is not supported.
Recommendations
The Codes SEPP should not override the minimum lot size requirements within Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plans. Any proposal to do so is not supported.
Any provisions in the Codes SEPP that permits subdivision of dual occupancy development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone should not be implemented to ensure the character and infrastructure capacity of low density zones is maintained.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
e) Dwelling Targets and Local Infrastructure
Within the Sydney Metropolitan Region The Hills is one of the key locations for housing delivery. Over the past decade, the Shire has been undergoing rapid growth at a rate greater than many other Sydney Metropolitan Local Government Areas. Over the past 30 years, the Shire’s population has grown by 100,000 people, with an additional 100,000 people planned for over the next 30 years. The growth will be the second largest population increase within the Metropolitan Region. By 2031 The Hills Shire will be home to the third largest population in Sydney.
In 2004 the State Government set targets for residential growth, since then around 10,000 new homes have been delivered – with over 3,000 of these being developed as multi-unit dwelling or apartments. Between 2001-2010 the annual population growth rate of The Hills was 4.5% this percentage was also the highest rate for an outer Sydney statistical area.
Along with the support of planning proposals that have had the potential to increase yield (both medium and high density) across The Shire, the Sydney Metro Northwest and State Government has identified 28,000 new homes across the eight (8) new train stations by 2036.
A blanket approach to density and development types that can be undertaken with little consultation will not facilitate a positive outcome for the community or ensure density is located in the right place with adequate access to services and facilities.
Increases in the expected dwelling targets, could potentially have an uptake to double the density on some lots. This will have significant repercussions with respect to the provision of infrastructure required to support additional population including roads, open space, playing fields and community facilities. As outlined previously in the report, the density outcomes of manor homes is more akin to higher density development and represent a 71.5% increase on what is expected and has been planned for in Council’s medium density areas.
Recommendations
Council is achieving dwelling targets set by the State Government not only within the rail precincts but other areas within The Hills Shire. The implementation of medium density as complying development is unnecessary and not supported, given it would increase dwelling yields over and above that already planned for in terms of infrastructure.
f) Purpose and intent of the Codes SEPP
The Codes SEPP commenced on 27 February 2009, introducing State wide development standards to enable ‘minor’ development types to be specified as exempt development (not requiring approval) and ‘low impact’ development types as complying development (approval by an accredited certifier - no development assessment required). The complying development code originally applied to single dwellings and house alterations, however over time there have been several amendments to the Codes SEPP, including the introduction of small lot housing and additional development types such as commercial and industrial development and fire safety. It is noted that State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 enables secondary dwellings (granny flats) to be complying development.
For these development types all the relevant standards that need to be complied with to enable a complying development are set out within the SEPP Instrument. The proposed Medium Density Housing Code does not however align with this approach. In order to
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 NOVEMBER, 2016
undertake one of the identified housing types as complying development an applicant must comply with the Specified Development Standards proposed under the SEPP, as well as all the relevant design criteria under the Medium Density Design Guide. In addition, a Design Verification Statement prepared by the person who designed the building is also required as evidence that the development complies with the design criteria. These additional requirements only serve to illustrate that the identified medium density housing types are not low risk or low impact, but are potentially complex and contentious development outcomes requiring specific development controls tailored to the requirements of a local area. Accordingly they are not appropriate for inclusion under the Codes SEPP and should remain to be assessed through the development application pathway.
Recommendation:
The Codes SEPP is intended for low risk and low impact development types.
Medium density housing is generally complex and contentious and should remain to be assessed through the development application pathway.
g) Car Parking Provisions.
The proposed changes to the Codes SEPP recommend the provision of one car space per dwelling for dual occupancies. No requirement for car parking is provided for multi- dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses in the development standards of the Codes SEPP. However, The Design Guide notes that car parking requirements for multi- dwelling housing (terraces) should be consistent with Council’s DCP and manor houses are to require one car space per dwelling.
Recommendation:
Car parking provisions for dual occupancies, multi-dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses are inadequate given local conditions relating to high car ownership. Car parking requirements should be determined by local councils and must have regard to the local conditions. The proposed car parking provisions are therefore not supported.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments to apply complying development provisions to medium density development will have significant and unacceptable impacts on the Hills Shire and on this basis are strongly opposed.
The implementation of additional complying development provisions to medium density development demonstrates a disregard toward local planning policy. The approach of achieving increased complying development through the reduction in design standards will simply perpetuate a minimum compliance development which will ultimately affect the established character of the Shire’s residential areas, particularly low density residential zones.
Broadening the application of complying development provisions to contentious development types, such as dual occupancies, manor houses and terrace housing will also significantly increase the role of private certifiers. The private certification process is already failing to deal with smaller developments types with a lower amenity impact.
The approach adopted by the State Government to continually implement amendments to planning policy, by reducing development standards, in an attempt to stimulate dwelling growth lacks long term strategic merit and will fail to achieve its intended objective. The changes will increase densities without any regard to the provision of