ECM 6867458 v1 CiS05 Draft Medium Density Housing Code ... · medium density housing types, such as dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces. The DPE has noted that there is a

ITEM CiS05 REPORTS 05/12/16

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

Report to General Manager Attachments:

1. Submission to Medium Density Housing Discussion Paper SUBJECT: Draft Medium Density Housing Code & Design Guide AUTHOR: Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner ENDORSED BY: Joseph Hill, Director City Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) has identified a policy gap in relation to the provision of medium density housing as an alternative housing form in NSW, dubbed as the ‘Missing Middle’. In particular, there is a lack of guidance for the provision of low rise medium density housing types, such as dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces. The DPE has noted that there is a growing demand for low rise medium density housing in NSW. In response to this, the DPE has prepared the draft Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG) and Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) for a draft Medium Density Housing Code (new Code) to be incorporated within the Codes SEPP. These documents are on exhibition for public comment until 12 December 2016. Whilst there is no real objection to allowing medium density housing to be undertaken as complying development in areas where they are already permissible, this report identifies a number of additional issues that still need to be resolved. It is therefore recommended that Council forward a submission to the DPE outlining its concerns as outlined in this report. Councils have the option of adopting the MDDG upon its coming into force for the purposes of assessing development applications for medium density development. If adopted the provisions of the MDDG override those contained within a councils development control plan (DCP). It is not recommended that Council adopt the MDDG, as it may have potential adverse impacts on the desired future character of North Sydney’s neighbourhoods and localities due to its ability to override the requirements within North Sydney DCP 2013 (NSDCP 2013). However, as the MDDG will establish best practice guidance for the development of medium density housing forms, it is further recommended that Council undertake a detailed review of the MDDG upon its coming into force to identify potential amendments to NSDCP 2013 to ensure best practice is achieved. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil Local Government Act 1993: Section 23A Guidelines - Council Decision Making During Merger Proposal Period The Guidelines have been considered in the preparation of this report and are not applicable.

Version: 1, Version Date: 01/12/2016Document Set ID: 6867458

Report of Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner Re: Draft Medium Density Housing Code & Design Guide

(2)

RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council prepares and forwards a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment in response to the draft Medium Density Design Guide, Explanation of Intended Effects and draft new Medium Density Housing Code based on the issues raised in this report. In particular, the following issues are to be addressed:

(a) reiterating Council’s position with regard to previous submissions; (b) outlining the need to amend the proposed definitions for multi dwelling housing, multi

dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses; (c) outlining the need to create new definitions for townhouses and villas; (d) seeking confirmation that only attached dual occupancies are permitted as complying

development in the LGA; (e) recommending that the proposed maximum height for terrace housing be reduced from

9m to 8.5m; (f) recommending limiting the length of terrace house developments on the same lot

(prior to subdivision) of land; (g) seeking confirmation as to whether manor houses can comprise 4 dwellings in a single

storey form; and (h) ensuring that the proposed development standards are able to be appropriately applied

without having to rely on a future subdivision of the land which may not occur; (i) potential creation of a new definition within the SI LEP for 'dwelling lots' to assist in

applying the proposed development controls; and (j) mandating the need for a Design Certification Statement, potentially within the SI

LEP. 2. THAT Council not adopt the Medium Density Design Guide once it comes into force; and 3. THAT Council undertake a detailed review of the Medium Density Design Guide, once it comes into force, to determine what impacts the Guide will have on NSDCP 2013 and identify any potential amendments to NSCP 2013 to ensure best practice is achieved when developing medium density housing.



(3)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows: Direction: 2. Our Built Environment Outcome: 2.2 Improved mix of land use and quality development through design

excellence BACKGROUND On 30 November 2015, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) commenced the public exhibition of a Discussion Paper investigating the expansion of housing types that could be undertaken as complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP). The proposed amendments aimed to:

• Establish complying development rules for low scale medium density residential development, including townhouses, villas, terraces, dual occupancies and manor houses;

• Reduce approval times and costs for home owners; and • Deliver more housing and greater housing choice, including more sustainable

housing options. Submissions were initially invited up until 31 January 2016. However, this timeframe was extended to 15 February 2016 in response to requests from stakeholders. Council staff made a submission to this Discussion Paper (refer to Attachment 1) on 11 February 2016. The submission outlined Council’s general support for the proposed amendments to the Codes SEPP but had identified a number of issues which required further investigation or amendment. In particular, Council’s submission requested:

• Improved clarity as to where different medium density dwelling types were to be made permissible, by specifically identifying those zones where that dwelling type may be permitted as complying development;

• Access handles and rights of carriageways be excluded from calculating minimum lot sizes, as these items do not contribute to the amenity and developable space of a site;

• The incorporation of rear setback controls for development on sites that have rear lane access;

• Replacement of building height plane controls with nominal setbacks to improve clarity and application;

• That both dwellings forming part of a dual occupancy are to provide the same level of private open space;

• That the definition of ‘manor house’ be incorporated within the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (SI LEP);

• A restriction be incorporated on the depth of excavations for basements; • That the certification of domestic waste and stormwater disposal be undertaken by

councils and not private certifiers;



(4)

• That controls relating to ‘multi dwelling housing’ be limited to ‘townhouse’ and ‘villa’ forms rather than a mixture of housing types on one lot of land (e.g. manor houses and townhouses);

• That multi dwelling housing not be permitted in the R2 Low Density Housing zone;

• More analysis be undertaken to determine more appropriate internal building separation requirements;

• That attic rooms not be permitted; • That adaptable housing requirements be incorporated, stipulating that at least 10%

of all dwellings within a development are capable of being made adaptable; • That consideration be given to applying minimum dwelling sizes for manor

houses; • That consideration be given to analysing more developments to establish more

robust controls; • That consideration be given to limiting the amount of garaging/car parking facing

the street, to minimise streetscape impacts. On 25 February 2016, Council forwarded a supplementary submission to correct a minor error in its submission of 11 February 2016. In particular, the supplementary submission clarifies that Council does not support the erection of manor houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. On 12 October 2016, the DPE released a draft Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG) and an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) for a draft Medium Density Housing Code (new Code) to be incorporated within the Codes SEPP for public comment. Submissions are invited on the new Code and MDDG until 12 December 2016. Copies of the documents are available through the following links on the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s website: EIE - http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Factsheets-and-

faqs/explanation-of-intended-effects-proposed-medium-density-housing-code-2016-10.ashx

MDDG - http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/~/media/B31C0E2610F04D95AE0F4149A82DC513.ashx

A hard copy of the two documents have also been made available to Councillors in the Councillors Room. This report seeks to provide an outline of the proposed documents and their implications for Council should they be implemented. From this analysis, a recommendation will be made as to whether a submission should be made to the DPE. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS Community engagement is not required.


http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/%7E/media/Files/DPE/Factsheets-and-faqs/explanation-of-intended-effects-proposed-medium-density-housing-code-2016-10.ashx



http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/%7E/media/B31C0E2610F04D95AE0F4149A82DC513.ashx

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/%7E/media/B31C0E2610F04D95AE0F4149A82DC513.ashx


(5)

SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT This report deals with draft State Government Legislation/Policy which may have a substantial effect on sustainability. This report is for information purposes only; a sustainability assessment was not undertaken. DETAIL 1. Purpose The DPE has identified a policy gap in relation to the provision of medium density housing as an alternative housing form in NSW. In particular, there is currently little guidance for the provision of low rise medium density housing types such as dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces. This policy gap has been dubbed the ‘Missing Middle’. The DPE has noted that there is a growing demand for low rise medium density housing as people choose to live in areas close to existing centres, but without a desire to live in an apartment building. In November 2015, the DPE released a Discussion Paper on the Missing Middle (refer to the background section of this report), suggesting a number of ways to improve the uptake of this form of residential development. Following its consideration of submissions to the Discussion Paper, the DPE has now progressed to the preparation of a draft MDDG and an EIE for a new Code to be incorporated within the Codes SEPP. Both of these documents are currently on public exhibition and are the subject of this report. 2. Explanation of Intended Effects (EIE) Under section 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) the Minister for Planning is required to publicise an explanation of intended effects where it is proposed to make or amend a SEPP and to consider any submissions made in response to its exhibition. The proposal subject to the EIE specifically seeks to amend the Codes SEPP by introducing a new Code – ‘Medium Density Housing Code’ and to amend the SI LEP by introducing new definitions to support the new Code. The primary intent of the new Code is to:

• provide an efficient mode of delivery for low rise medium density housing; • remove existing obstacles to delivering this form of housing; and • provide a variety of housing choice across NSW in areas that are zoned for

medium density housing. The Codes SEPP currently permits residential development in the form of detached dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings or attached dwellings on individual allotments as complying development, subject to satisfying strict criteria. It is proposed to expand the Codes SEPP to allow dual occupancies, terrace houses and manor houses, where those developments maintain similar level of built form as currently permitted under the Codes SEPP.



(6)

Whilst there is generally no objection to permitting multi dwelling housing as a form of complying development, there are number of concerns with the new Code which require further investigation and or amendment. A more detailed analysis of the proposed issues within the EIE are provided in the following subsections. 2.1. Definitions There are currently a large number of different housing forms that can comprise medium density housing and there is little in the way of hierarchy, unlike other defined terms under the SI LEP. It is proposed to rationalise the terms and create a hierarchy to provide better clarification between residential development types. At present, residential development is currently defined under the SI LEP as follows:

residential accommodation means a building or place used predominantly as a place of residence, and includes any of the following: (a) attached dwellings, (b) boarding houses, (c) dual occupancies, (d) dwelling houses, (e) group homes, (f) hostels, (g) multi dwelling housing, (h) residential flat buildings, (i) rural workers’ dwellings, (j) secondary dwellings, (k) semi-detached dwellings, (l) seniors housing, (m) shop top housing, but does not include tourist and visitor accommodation or caravan parks

Regardless of the residential accommodation development type, they can be constructed in a range of residential densities. Table 1 illustrates what types of residential accommodation fall into one of the three typically identified residential density categories. The proposed new Code principally focuses on the provision of low scale medium density housing with a focus on dual occupancies, terrace housing and a new form of development to be known as manor houses, which are similar in form to a low scale residential flat building.



(7)

TABLE 1: Comparison of residential accommodation types and density standards

Low Density Medium Density High Density

Boarding houses Dual occupancies Dwelling houses

Group homes

Rural workers dwellings Secondary dwellings

Semi-detached dwellings Seniors housing

Attached dwellings Boarding houses

Group homes Hostels

Multi dwelling housing Residential flat buildings

Seniors housing Shop top housing

Boarding houses

Hostels

Residential flat buildings

Seniors housing Shop top housing

Multi dwelling housing is currently defined under the SI LEP as follows:

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

This definition is proposed to be amended as in association with the new Code as follows (red underline represents an insertion and blue strikethrough a deletion):

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

It is also proposed to add the following two new definitions in association with the new Code:

manor house means a building containing 3 or 4 dwellings on one lot of land, where: (a) Each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall and/or floor,

and (b) The building contains no more than two storeys, excluding any basement

storey.

multi dwelling housing (terraces) means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each dwelling has a frontage to a public road and no other dwellings are above or below.

The EIE states that multi dwelling housing (terraces) will be a type of multi dwelling housing. 2.1.1. Comment The proposed definition of manor house is quite similar to the definition of a residential flat building, other than it provides limitations on its connection between dwellings and imposes a maximum height and a maximum number of dwellings. To improve clarity, it is suggested that the definition of manor houses be amended to exclude the development type from being



(8)

classified as a residential flat building, and that the definition of residential flat building be amended to exclude the development type from being classified as a manor house. Suggested wording for amending these definitions are provided as follows (red underline represents an insertion and blue strikethrough a deletion):

manor house means a building containing 3 or 4 dwellings on one lot of land, where: (a) Each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall and/or floor,

and (b) The building contains no more than two storeys, excluding any basement

storey. and does not include a residential flat building. residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling, manor house or multi dwelling housing.

Multi dwelling housing can comprise a variety of dwelling configurations. The proposed amendments to the definition of multi dwelling housing and the proposed introduction of a new definition of multi dwelling housing (terraces) may create a level of confusion, especially if multi dwelling housing (terraces) is to comprise a sub-term of multi dwelling housing. To improve clarity, the definition of multi dwelling housing should be amended to comprise a group term that identifies the different types of multi dwelling housing forms. It is suggested that the definition of multi dwelling housing could be amended to read as follows (red underline represents an insertion and blue strikethrough a deletion):

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level, and no other dwellings are above or below and includes any of the following: (a) terraces, (b) townhouses, and (c) villas. but does not include a manor house or a residential flat building.

These suggested amendments are consistent with the approach to defining group terms for business premises, retail premises, and tourist and visitor accommodation under the SI LEP. To align with this new suggested group term definition, it is also suggested that the proposed definition of multi dwelling housing (terraces) be amended to read as follows (red underline represents an insertion and blue strikethrough a deletion):

multi dwelling housing (terraces) means 3 or more dwellings which are attached on one lot of land, and each dwelling has a direct frontage to a public road and no other dwellings are above or below. Note. Terraces are a type of multi dwelling housing – see the definition of that term in this dictionary

Furthermore, it is suggested that new definitions for townhouses and villas be created, as follows:



(9)

Townhouses means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, and does not include terraces or villas. Note. Townhouses are a type of multi dwelling housing – see the definition of that term in this dictionary. Villas means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, not exceeding 1 storey in height and does not include terraces or townhouses. Note. Villas are a type of multi dwelling housing – see the definition of that term in this dictionary.

The creation of new definitions for ‘townhouses’ and ‘villas’ will help to further clarify the types of development that are permitted under the Codes SEPP and avoid any ambiguity in interpretation of land use terms. 2.2. Application The proposed medium density development types identified under the new Code will be subject to the same general land restrictions as all other types of complying development under Codes SEPP. In particular, developments will be required to comply with:

• Clause 1.17 – the development must be specified within a Code and meet all of the relevant specified standards;

• Clause 1.17A – the development must not be: o development for which development consent cannot be granted without

concurrence from another body; o on land that is critical habitat; o on land that is or forms part of a wilderness area; o on land comprising a State Heritage Item; o on land affected by an Interim Heritage Order; o on land identified as a heritage item; o on land within an environmentally sensitive area

• Clause 1.18 – must: o not be an exempt development type permitted under the Codes SEPP; o be permissible with development consent under an environmental

planning instrument (e.g. NSLEP 2013); o not be designated development; o not be undertaken on land comprising a draft heritage item;

• Clause 1.19 – the development must not be carried on land: o that is within a heritage conservation area or draft heritage conservation

area; o that is reserved for public purposes; o identified as containing Class 1 or 2 acid sulfate soils; o that is subject to a biobanking agreement; o identified within an environmental planning instrument as being within

a buffer area, river front area, ecologically sensitive area, environmentally sensitive land or a protected area;

o identified within an environmental planning instrument as being subject to a coastline hazard, coastal hazard or coastal erosion;

o foreshore area; o with a 25 ANEF contour or higher;



(10)

o declared as a special area under the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act;

o that is unsewered; o identified as being in a drinking water catchment;

2.3. Dual Occupancy Development (side by side) The new Code will permit various forms of dual occupancy development as complying development but only where it is permissible under a council’s LEP and it is located in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village zone. In particular, the new Code will permit both attached (both vertically and horizontally) and detached forms of dual occupancy as complying development. However, dual occupancies (both attached and detached) will not be permitted if the development results in one dwelling being located in front of another dwelling, such that only one of the dwellings has a direct street frontage. NSLEP 2013 only permits attached dual occupancies within the R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial zones with development consent. Detached dual occupancies are prohibited outright through the entire LGA under NSLEP 2013. Therefore, under the new Code, attached dual occupancies will be only permitted as complying development in the R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones within the LGA and detached dual occupancies will not be able to be undertaken as complying development anywhere within the LGA. However, further clarification should be sought to ensure that this is the eventual outcome. It is currently unclear, if the actual provisions of the new Code could potentially override Council’s permissibility of only allowing attached dual occupancies. For example, that if attached dual occupancies are permitted under an LEP, then both attached and detached dual occupancies would be permitted under the new Code. The proposed development controls for dual occupancies under the Code are largely identical to that for dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings permitted as complying development under the current Codes SEPP. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be a notable change to streetscapes and the character of areas as a result of permitting such development as complying development. The proposed restriction, to prevent dual occupancies from being permitted as complying development under the new Code is consistent with the current Codes SEPP restriction on allowing dwelling housing on battle axe allotments and is therefore supported. All of the relevant development standards for dual occupancies under the new Code will be generally consistent with or more onerous than Council’s current controls and therefore, it is unlikely that Council would see many applications being made for such development under the Codes SEPP. In particular, the value of land in North Sydney, would see many developers seeking to maximise their returns by erecting the biggest development possible on the land, and therefore it is highly likely that proponents would seek to lodge a development application under Council’s controls.



(11)

2.4. Dual Occupancy Development (one dwelling above another) In addition to the provision of dual occupancies as complying development where the dwellings are to be located side by side (refer to Section 2.3 of this report), the new Code will permit vertically attached dual occupancy development (one dwelling above another) as complying development, but only where it is permissible under a council’s LEP and it is located in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village zone. NSLEP 2013 only permits attached dual occupancies within the R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial zones with development consent. Detached dual occupancies are prohibited outright through the entire LGA under NSLEP 2013. Therefore, under the new Code, vertically attached dual occupancies will be only permitted as complying development in the R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones within the LGA. The proposed development controls for vertically attached dual occupancies under the new Code are largely identical to that for dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings permitted as complying development under the current Codes SEPP. However, the proposed minimum lot size controls (600sqm) are more restrictive than those set by Council under NSLEP 2013 (450sqm). The new Code also requires a minimum lot width of 15m, whereas NSLEP 2013 and NSDCP 2013 do not apply such a requirement. There is a very low portion of residential lots within the North Sydney LGA that have a lot width greater than 15m. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be a notable change to streetscapes and the character of areas as a result of permitting such development as complying development. All of the relevant development standards for dual occupancies under the new Code will be generally consistent with or more onerous than Council’s current controls and therefore, it is unlikely that Council would see many applications being made for such development under the Codes SEPP. In particular, the value of land in North Sydney, would see many developers seeking to maximise their returns by erecting the biggest development possible on the land. 2.5. Terraces The new Code will permit terrace housing (as defined under section 2.1 to this report) as complying development, but only where multi dwelling housing is permissible under a council’s LEP and it is located in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village zone. As per the proposed definition of multi dwelling houses (terraces), they will only be permitted if each dwelling has as direct frontage to a public road. Therefore townhouse and villa type developments flanking a central common driveway will not be permitted as complying development under the new Code. NSLEP 2013 only permits multi dwelling housing within the R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial zones with development consent. Multi dwelling housing is prohibited in all other zones under NSLEP 2013. Therefore, under the new Code, multi dwelling housing (terraces) will be only permitted as complying development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone within the LGA. All other forms of multi dwelling housing (e.g. townhouses and villas) will be required to obtain development consent through the lodgement of a development application.



(12)

The proposed development controls for multi dwelling housing (terraces) under the new Code are largely identical to that for dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings permitted as complying development under the current Codes SEPP. However, it is proposed to increase the maximum permitted height limit from 8.5m to 9m. The justification for this increase in height is to allow for the provision of basement parking or an attic. The proposed increase in height is not supported, as:

• All other housing types permitted under the Codes SEPP and proposed new Code may provide a basement for parking or an attic, yet are restricted to a maximum of 8.5m in height;

• Basements are deemed to be a storey (refer to clause 3.2A) but attics are not (refer to clause 1.5(2) and the definition of storey under the SI LEP) and therefore an attic could easily be accommodated with the 8.5m height limit, given that basements can’t project more than 1m above ground level.

It is not proposed to allow terraces to be built to side boundaries. This is to ensure that there are breaks in the streetscape and reduce the visual bulk of buildings. However, there is no limitation on the overall length of a set of terraces, which could counteract this argument. It is therefore recommended that the street façade of a set of terraces not exceed between 40-50m in length to ensure adequate breaks are provided. This is generally consistent with the best practice for the erection of residential flat buildings. 2.6. Manor houses The new Code envisages manor houses to comprise either:

• one dwelling on the ground floor with two dwellings above; or • two dwellings on the ground floor with two dwellings above.

However, the proposed definition of a manor house (refer to Section 2.1 of this report) could technically permit three or four dwellings to be constructed at the ground level. As there are no specific controls proposed requiring a manor house to comprise a two storey built form, there is some confusion as to what could be permitted (refer to Figure 1). Accordingly, further clarification is therefore required to determine if a manor house can comprise four dwellings in a single storey form.



(13)

Terrace housing Single storey manor home Two storey manor home

FIGURE 1: Comparison of Development Types

The new Code will permit manor houses as complying development, but only where multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings are permissible under a council’s LEP and it is located in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village zone. NSLEP 2013 only permits multi dwelling housing within the R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial zones (former Residential F zone under NSLEP 2001 at McMahons Point) with development consent and residential flat buildings in the R4 High Density Residential zone. Multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings are prohibited in all other zones under NSLEP 2013. Therefore, under the new Code, manor houses will be only permitted as complying development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone within the LGA. This is generally consistent with the desired outcomes envisaged by NSLEP 2013 for its localities in terms of density and built form. The proposed development controls for manor houses under the new Code are largely identical to that for dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings permitted as complying development under the current Codes SEPP. However, the proposed minimum lot size controls (600sqm) are more restrictive than those set by Council under NSLEP 2013 (230sqm). The new Code also requires a minimum lot width of 15m.



(14)

As previously indicated, there is a very low portion of residential lots zoned R3 Medium Density Residential within the North Sydney LGA that have a lot width greater than 15m and only contain a single dwelling house. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be a notable change to streetscapes and the character of areas as a result of permitting such development as complying development. All of the relevant development standards for manor houses under the new Code will be generally consistent with or more onerous than Council’s current controls and therefore, it is unlikely that Council would see many applications being made for such development under the Codes SEPP. In particular, the value of land in North Sydney, would see many developers seeking to maximise their returns by erecting the biggest development possible on the land. 2.7. Development standards The new Code contains a number of development standards which are to be applied to the various new development types. However, sometimes it is not entirely clear as to whether the proposed development controls (e.g. minimum lot size) should apply to the development site (i.e. the subject land before any development occurs) or to an area of land upon which an individual dwelling is to be located under the new Code and will form a new lot under a potential future subdivision. For example, in Section 3.3 to the EIE, the various development controls for ‘two dwellings side by side’ are inconsistently expressed relative to the ‘lot’, ‘each lot’ or ‘strata lots’. The inconsistent wording creates uncertainty as to whether a ‘lot’ or ‘each lot’ refers to the original allotment or the future subdivided lot or strata lot. Furthermore, given that there is no mandate to subdivide the complying development once it is finished, it will therefore be difficult to apply some of the development standards where they relate to a potential future subdivision. The issue is further exacerbated by apparent conflicting requirements throughout the EIE. To remove any confusion, the proposed controls should be simplified, such that they specifically and clearly relate to the original site allotment size and/or the number of dwellings proposed to be provided. This would remove any doubt if the proposed properties are not to be subdivided. It is suggested that a new term and definition could be created to provide increased clarity, such as:

dwelling lot means the land to which a dwelling has sole occupation, prior to its subdivision.

Furthermore, in Section 3 of the EIE, the new Code proposes development standards relating to the size and widths of strata lots, but is silent with regard to lots within a Torrens title subdivision. This would appear to prevent the Torrens title subdivision of land which is contrary to one of the intents of the EIE. If it is proposed to restrict the area and width of strata lots, the development standards would need to be amended to cater for those instances where basement parking is to be provided and a lot is spread over multiple levels and not necessarily over the same ground plane. Accordingly, the new Code needs to be revised to greatly improve clarity as to when development standards apply.



(15)

2.8. Subdivision The existing Codes SEPP already permits the strata subdivision of multi dwelling housing (refer to Part 6 - Subdivisions Code) for which approval has been granted by development consent or a complying development certificate. It is proposed to amend the Subdivisions Code:

• to allow the Strata subdivision of dual occupancies, but only in those instances where a complying development certificate has been issued under the new Code; and

• to allow the Torrens title subdivision of multi dwelling housing and dual occupancies, to create dwelling houses, attached dwellings or semi attached dwellings but only where: o the land is zoned R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential,

R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village and a dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing is permissible on the land, and

o a single complying development certificate has been issued for development under the new Code, and

o no more than one dwelling house, attached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling is provided on the lot.

The new Code is also proposed to contain a number of other restrictions, such as:

• not result in the creation of any new streets, roads or lanes; • each lot created must have a frontage to a street; • each lot created must have a minimum dimension of 6m; • each lot created for a dual occupancy must not be less than 50% of the

minimum allotment size requirement under an environmental planning instrument (i.e. NSLEP 2013) that applies to the land, or if there is no such requirement, must not be less than 60% of the minimum allotment size or 200sqm, whatever is the greater.

The strata subdivision of manor houses is capable of being undertaken under the existing provisions of the Subdivision Code under the Codes SEPP, similar to the strata subdivision of residential flat buildings. To avoid property speculation, there is an additional restriction preventing the issuing of a subdivision certificate, until an interim occupation certificate has been issued which demonstrates that the dwelling is suitable for occupation (i.e. the dwellings will need to have been constructed). No objections are raised with regard to the proposed expansion of the Subdivisions Code and the proposed restrictions to be imposed. 3. Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG) The EIE is accompanied by a draft MDDG. The MDDG has been developed for both development applications and complying development under the new Code. In particular, it also applies to medium density development not considered by the new Code such as villas and townhouses. The MDDG will encourage good design outcomes for medium density



(16)

development across the State by establishing development standards that align with best practice, in a similar way to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) under State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65). The MDDG contains guidance and criteria relating to, but not limited to:

• establishing principal built form controls, including: o building envelopes (heights and setbacks); o floor space ratios; o landscaped areas;

• guidance on the siting of developments; • guidance on how to establish high levels of amenity by controlling:

o dwelling size and layout; o solar access and ventilation; o private open space; o storage and parking; o visual and acoustic privacy;

• guidance on design issues relating to: o built form; o common areas; o aesthetics and articulation; o ancillary development.

• setting of specific design criteria that needs to be met for the various forms of medium density housing; and

• procedures for applications made using the MDDG. In relation to complying development for medium density housing under the new Code, the proposed developments are required to be assessed against the provisions of the MDDG and must comply with the Design Criteria under Part 3 of the MDDG. 3.1. Application of the MDDG In relation to development applications for medium density housing under an LEP, the MDDG is only required to be considered if it has been adopted by a council. If the MDDG is adopted, it must be adopted in its entirety. If Council was to adopt the MDDG, Council would be required to amend North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 (NSDCP 2013) such that any inconsistences are removed. It is proposed that the MDDG will not override a council’s existing planning controls but is to be considered alongside a council’s DCP. The MDDG states that where it is adopted by a council, then the relevant controls under the MDDG take precedence over those within a DCP. Whilst this approach will help to minimise confusion in applying two sets of planning controls, it may have the potential of making more specific controls within NSDCP 2013 Area Character Statements redundant, potentially resulting in a change to the desired future character of our localities. On this basis, it is recommended that Council not adopt the MDDG once it comes into force to ensure that our localities are not developed contrary to the established desired future character. However, it is recommended that once the MDDG comes into force, that Council review NSDCP 2013, to ensure that appropriate controls are adopted to control medium density housing and are generally consistent with the intent of the MDDG.



(17)

If a council chooses not to adopt the MDDG, its existing planning controls will continue to apply unaffected. 3.2. Design Verification Statements If the MDDG is adopted, proposals for medium density housing will be required to be accompanied by a Design Verification Statement, demonstrating the proposal’s compliance with the MDDG, similar to the requirements for residential flat buildings under SEPP 65. However, there does not appear to be a legal requirement to do this under the current proposed set of documents. So it is unclear as to how this will be enforced. Further clarification is required in this respect. One potential solution would be to mandate the requirement for a Design Verification Statement under the SI LEP. This would ensure that all medium density housing would be designed in accordance with the design principles set out in the MDDG, without having the need to address the individual design controls within the document. 4. Have Councils’ concerns raised in its submission to the Discussion Paper been

addressed? The concerns raised by Council in its submissions to the Discussion Paper are addressed in Table 1.

TABLE 1 – Analysis of Councils submission Issue Addressed Comment

• Specifically identifying those zones within which the proposed complying development can be undertaken

YES The specific zones within which complying development can be undertaken is to be mandated in the new Code.

• Access handles and rights of carriageways be excluded from calculating minimum lot sizes, as these items do not contribute to the amenity and developable space of a site

NO Despite all of the proposed complying development types under the new Code requiring each dwelling to have a direct street frontage, it does not remove the fact that a site could be affected by a right of carriageway or an access handle. These areas do not contribute to the useability of a site and should be excluded. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to the DPE with regard to the calculation of minimum lot sizes.

• The incorporation of rear setback controls for development on sites that have rear lane access

NO All forms of residential development under the new Code will be able to be built with a 0m setback to a rear lane, up to two storeys in height. This has the potential to dramatically change the streetscape of laneways. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to address setbacks to rear lanes.



(18)

TABLE 1 – Analysis of Councils submission Issue Addressed Comment • The building height plane controls be

replaced with nominal setbacks to improve clarity and application

NO The new Code proposes to control built form, in part, through the imposition of building height plane controls. Building height plane controls are difficult to apply, especially where the topography is steep. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to remove building height plane controls and rely on the use of nominal setbacks.

• That both dwellings forming part of a vertically attached dual occupancy to provide the same level of private open space

NO It is proposed to apply different private open space rates, in a similar way to rates for an apartment within a residential flat building. Given that the rates are consistent with the minimum requirements under SEPP 65 and NSDCP 2013, the proposed rates are considered acceptable.

• The definition of ‘manor house’ be incorporated within the SI LEP

YES A new definition is proposed to be incorporated within the SI LEP.

• A restriction be incorporated on the depth of excavations for basements

YES Maximum excavation requirements have been incorporated within the MDDG for all forms of development under the new Code.

• That the certification of domestic waste and stormwater disposal be undertaken by councils and not private certifiers

NO No additional requirements have been incorporated within the new Code or accompanying MDDG restricting who can certify of domestic waste and stormwater disposal. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to restrict certification of domestic waste and stormwater disposal to councils only.

• That controls relating to ‘multi dwelling housing’ be limited to ‘townhouse’ and ‘villa’ forms rather than a mixture of housing types on one lot of land (e.g. manor houses and townhouses)

YES The new Code only proposes to permit one form of multi dwelling housing on a development site, consistent with Council’s request.

• That ‘multi dwelling housing’ not be permitted in the R2 Low Density Housing zone

YES All forms of multi dwelling housing under the new Code will be permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone contrary to Council’s position. However, the land use must also be permitted with development consent under an LEP to be undertaken as complying development under the new Code. The land use table to NSLEP 2013 would only permit multi dwelling housing (terraces) within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone only.

• More analysis be undertaken to determine more appropriate internal building separation requirements

N/A The new Code does not permit the erection of separate buildings upon a single site and therefore this issue is no longer relevant.



(19)

TABLE 1 – Analysis of Councils submission Issue Addressed Comment • Attic rooms should not be permitted NO It is proposed to increase the maximum

building height for terraces to 9m to allow basements and/or attic rooms. Recommendation: That Council should reiterate its position to the DPE as to why attic rooms should not be permitted.

• That adaptable housing requirements be incorporated, stipulating that at least 10% of all dwellings within a development are capable of being made adaptable

NO This issue was not addressed. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to the DPE as to why adaptable housing requirements should be incorporated.

• That consideration should be given to applying minimum dwelling sizes for manor homes

YES Minimum dwelling sizes have been incorporated within the MDDG for all forms of development under the new Code.

• That consideration should be given to analysing more developments to establish more robust controls

? It is not clear if the DPE has reviewed additional examples to justify the proposed controls. It is highly unlikely that this issue has been considered by the DPE. However, the tightening of the residential development types to which the new Code applies has addressed in part some of the cumulative concerns that Council has raised.

• That consideration should be given to limiting the amount of garaging/car parking facing the street, to minimise streetscape impacts

YES This issue is partly addressed in the draft MDDG, by limiting the width of garages to single space widths on sites less than 12.5m in width. Whilst this addresses smaller width sites, the MDDG should be expanded to limit the overall extent of car accommodation to a maximum of 50% of a building’s frontage to a street or 7m of building frontage whichever is the smaller. Recommendation: That Council reiterate its position to the DPE to restrict the extent of garages facing the street.



(20)

TABLE 1 – Analysis of Councils submission Issue Addressed Comment • Manor houses should not be permitted in the

R2 Low Residential Density zone. YES As manor houses are a new development type,

it is only proposed to permit manor houses on land where multi dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permissible with development consent, and the land is zoned R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or RU5 Village. NSLEP 2013 only permits multi dwelling housing in the R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial zones and residential flat buildings are only permitted in the R4 High Density Residential zone. Therefore manor homes will only be permitted as complying development under the new Code in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and therefore is consistent with Council’s adopted position.

5. Conclusion Having regard to submissions made in response to the public exhibition of the Options for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development Discussion Paper the DPE have released a draft MDDG and an EIE for a draft Medium Density Housing Code to be incorporated within the Codes SEPP for public comment. The MDDG and EIE address a large number of Council’s concerns to the Discussion Paper. However, a number of issues have not been adequately addressed. It is recommended in this regard to reiterate Council’s position with regard to these outstanding issues. Whilst there is no real objection to allowing medium density housing to be undertaken as complying development, a number of issues still need to be resolved. In particular, the following issues have been identified:

• The need to amend the proposed definitions for multi dwelling housing, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses;

• The need to create new definitions for townhouses and villas; • Ensuring that only attached dual occupancies are permitted as complying

development in the LGA; • That the proposed maximum height for terrace housing be reduced from 9m to

8.5m; • Limit the length of terrace house developments on the same lot (prior to

subdivision) of land; • Provide confirmation as to whether manor houses can comprise 4 dwellings in

a single storey form; • Ensure that the proposed development standards are able to be appropriately

applied without having to rely on a future subdivision of the land which may not occur;

• The need to create a new definition in the SI LEP for ‘dwelling lots’; and



(21)

• The need to mandate the need for a Design Certification Statement, potentiallywithin the SI LEP.

It is not recommended that Council adopt the MDDG once it comes into force. It is recommended that once the MDDG has come into force, that Council staff undertake a detailed review of the MDDG to determine what impacts the Guide will have on NSDCP 2013 and identify any potential amendments to NSDCP 2013 to remove any inconsistencies.

Accordingly, with regard to Council’s assessment of the EIE and the MDDG, it is recommended that Council make a submission to the DPE outlining its concerns as raised in this report.


NORTHSYDNEY couNcrroddress 200 Miller Street North Sydney NSW 20ó0

oll correspondence General Manager North Sydney CouncilPO Box 12 North Sydney NSW 2059DXt0587

telephone (02) 993ó 8100focsimile (02) 9936 Bl77

e m o i I council@northsydney. nsr.r'. gov. au

i n ter n et ww\\¡.northsydney.nslr,.govau

ABN 32 353 260 3t7

RE

Codes and Approvals PathwaysDepartment of Planning and EnvironmentGPO Box 39SYDNEY NSW 2OOI

Email : [email protected]. gov. au

KP(Crs)

9 August 2016

Dear Sir/ Madam,

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GENERAL HOUSING CODE IN SEPP(EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CODES) 2008

North Sydney Council (Council) would like to thank the Department of Planning &Environment (DPE) for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the proposed

amendment to the General Housing Code under Part 3 of the State Environmental PlanningPolicy (Exempt and Complying Codes), 2008 (Codes SEPP).

Whilst generally supportive ofthe proposed amendments to the Codes SEPP, particularlywithregard to improving its useability, Council has identified a number of issues which requirefurther investigation or further amendment.

Development Tvpes

Clause 3.1(1) to the draft Housing Code sets out the instances as to when the Code applies.However, it is unclear as to whether the draft Code applies to the erection of new semi-detached dwellings, attached dwellings or any attached ancillary development.

Under Clause 3.1(1)(a) the draft Code does not apply to the erection of new semi-detacheddwellings, attached dwellings or any attached ancillary development, despite altdrations and

additions to such development being permissible as complying development under Clause3.1(1Xb). In addition, the development controls under Division 2, Subdivision 1 permits such

development to be constructed but Division 3, Subdivision 1 does not make any reference tosemi-detached or attached dwellings.

It is also noted that the definition of a 'dwelling house' under the Codes SEPP includes an

attached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling. Therefore, to improve clarity for the user, it isrecommended that the terms 'semi-detached dwelling' and 'attached dwelling' be removedfrom Clause 3.1(1)(b) and a note be added at the end of Clause 3.1(1) to explain that the termdwelling houses also includes semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings.

* tGreen{rower 100% recycled paper

ATTACHMENT TO CiS05 - 05/12/16 Page 22


a

RecommendatìonThe draft Housing Code should be amended such that the words 'semí-detøcheddwellíngs' and'attached dwellíngs' be removedfrom Clause 3.1(1)(b). In addítíon, ønote should be ødded øt the end of Cløuse 3.1 to explaín that the term 'dwellínghouses' íncludes semí-detached dwellíngs ønd øttøched dwellings.

Lot Tvpes

Clause 3.34 to the draft Housing Code identifies 4 main 'lot types' under which, thedevelopment controls have been divided. Properties which have access to a rear laneway are notconsidered to be a parallel lot under the draft Code. This distinction is hidden in the definition ofa parallel lot under the SEPP. As a result, there is potential that the wrong controls may get

applied in some instances. To improve clarity for the user, it is recommended that a notation beplaced at the end of Clause 3.34 stating that a parallel lot specifically excludes laneways.Alternatively, a new lot type should be created and provided with its own set of controls.

Furthermore, the draft Housing Code does not identifli a potential fifth lot type - those with threeroad frontages (i.e. front, side and rear). Whilst these lot types are relatively uncoÍrmon,development on these lot types could not be undertaken as complying development under thedraft Housing Code, as it does not fit within one of the identified lot categories. It is anticipatedthat a combination of parallel lot and corner lot controls would need to be applied. Furtherclarification is requested in this respect or the addition of a new lot type.

RecommendatíonThe drøft Housíng Code should be ømended such that a notatíon be placed underCløuse 3.3A specífyíng that ø pørøllel road excludes løneways. Alternatívely, a new lottype, wíth íts own set of controls, should be created for ø property wíth reør lanewøyøccess.

In ødditíon, ø new lot type should be created under Clause 3.3Afor ø property that hasthree roødfrontøges (Le.front, sìde ønd reør).

Parallel Lots - Rear Setback

The draft Housing Code does not include a reat setback requirement for parallel lots (i.e. asetback to the parallel road). Under Clause 3.14(2) and (3) of the current Housing Code, aminimum requirement of 3m is set with building to boundarypermitted if it does not extend morethan 50Yo along the boundary and does not comprise a classified road. These existing controlsshould be applied to parallel lots under the draft Housing Code.

RecommendatìonThe draft Housíng Code should be amended to ínclude the rear setback provísíon forpørøllel lots under 3.14(2) of the current Housìng Code under the Codes SEPP.

Maximum Gross Floor Areas

No explanation has been provided for the proposed changes to the maximum gross floor area

requirements under Clause 3.7 to the draft Housing Code. In particular, no explanation has beenprovided for the changes to the lot size ranges and quantum of permissible floor spaçe.



J_

Whilst the proposed rates appearto be more fairly applied with amore direct correlationbetweenthe size of the dwelling and the size of the allotment, the ranges do not align with requirementsfor landscaped area. There is typically a direct correlation between GFA and landscaped area,

and therefore should be linked.

To improve clarity for the user, it is recommended that single lot size ranges be set across theentire Housing Code to better correlate with other development controls within the Housing Codewhere relevant (i.e. landscaped area, setbacks).

RecommendatíonThe proposed maxímum gross floor areøs control under Clause 3.7 of the draftHousing Code should be amended such that single lot síze rønges be set across theentíre Housíng Code to better correlate wíth other development controls within theHousíng Code (such as løndscøped øreas, setbøcks).

Minimum Landscaped Area

The proposed increase in the minimum landscaped area requirements is supported by Council.However, the two additional lot size ranges introduced under Clause 3.8 of the draft HousingCode do not align with the requirements for gross floor area. To improve clarity for the user, it isrecommended that single lot size ranges be set across the entire Housing Code to better correlatewith other development controls within the Housing Code where relevant (i.e. landscaped area,

setbacks).

RecommendatíonThe proposed mínimum løndscøped areø controls under Clause 3.8 of the drøftHousíng Code should be ømended such thøt síngle lot síze ranges be set øcross theentíre Housíng Code to better coneløte wíth other development controls wíthín theHousíng Code (such øs løndscøped areøs, setbacks).

Battle-axe Lots

Clause 3.6 ofthe current Housing Code states that "þr the purposes of calculating the area of alot, the area of the access laneway ís excluded ifit ís a battle-axe lot." This clause applies to thecalculation of site area under the entire General Housing Code. However, the intent ofthis clausehas not been carried across to the draft Housing Code in full.

The only time the access handle is proposed to be excluded from the site area is in relation to thecalculation of gross floor area (Clauses 3.7,3.79 and 3.30 to the draft Housing Code). This iscontrary to Clause 3.1(2Xb) of the draft Housing Code, where the area of any access handle isincluded in the calculation of the minimum site area. As a result, the developable part of a battle-axe lot is likely to be well below the minimum requirement on which to accommodate a

development of the scale envisaged under the draft Housing Code on a standard lot.

In addition, there appear to be no requirements to exclude the area of the access handle whencalculating the minimum landscaped area of the site. Access handles should be excluded fromthe calculation of landscaped area as they are unable to positively contribute to landscaped area

and are typically often entirely hard paved.



-4-

RecommendøtíonTo avoíd confusían and ensure that the íntent of the Housíng Code remøíns, the drøftHousíng Code should be ømended such that:

a new subclause be added to cluuse 3.1 støtíng that:'when calculatíng the lot síze of ø battle-axe lot, the area of the accesslanewøy ís excluded'

Clauses 3.7, clause 3.19 and clause 3.30 be amended to state:

'when calculøting the lot size of ø bøttle-axe lot, the ørea of the accesslanewøy ís excluded'

a new subclause to cløuses 3.8,3.20 snd 3.31 be included statíng:'when cølculøtíng the lot síze of ø battle-axe lot, the areø of the accessIaneway ís excluded'

Use of Fisures/Diagrams

The use of figures and diagrams within the draft Housing Code is strongly supported by Council,as it adds clarity to the interpretation of controls. However, some of the figures do not directlyrelate to the controls being described. It is noted that most of the diagrams depict a "StandardLot," despite being applied to other lot types. It is therefore recoÍrmended that the diagrams be

amended such that they more appropriately relate to the lot type in question.

RecommendøtionThefigures and diagrams wíthin the drøft Housing Code should be amended such thatthey dìrectly relate to the lot type in questíon.

Primarv Road Setbacks

Clause 3.9 to the draft Housing Code sets the minimum setbacks for standard lots in relation tonew dwelling houses. However, the table under subclause (2) appears to duplicate the sidesetback requirements rather than front setback requirements. This appears to be an error andshould have reflected the setbacks which are correctly identified under Clause 3,21 to the draftHousing Code, which are applied to alterations and additions to dwellinghouses. Therefore, itisrecommended that the table to Clause 3.9 be replaced with the table located under Clause 3.21 ofthe draft Housing Code.

RecommendatíonThe drøft Housíng Code should be ømended such thøt the tøble under Cløuse 3,9(2) berepløced wíth the tøble under Cløuse 3.21.

Setbacks for battle-axe lots

The description of a battle-axe property under the draft Housing Code is much clearer than underthe current Housing Code. ln particular, Clause 3.12(1) of the draft Code describes a battle-axelot as one that has 3 side boundaries and 1 rear boundary. However, the identification of whichboundary is the rear remains ambiguous.

o

a

o



-5-

The clause states that "the rear boundary is opposite to the boundary to whích the front of thedwelling housefaces. " However, there is no restriotion on a dwelling's orientation. As a result,what constitutes the front ofthe dwelling is open to interpretation, as dwellings on battle-axe lotstypically face the rear of the property in front which has a street frontage. Orienting dwellings at

90 degrees to the street to which the access handle connects can result in increasing potentialprivacy impacts. To improve clarity for the user, it is recommended that an additional note beincorporated to indicate that the front of the dwelling is the facade that faces the street to whichthe access handle connects.

RecommendationThe draft Housing Code be ømended such thøt a note be added under Clause 3.12 (1)støtíng that the front of the dwellíng ís the føçøde thøt faces the street to whích theøccess høndle connects.

Attached balconies. decks. patios" terraces and verandahs

Clause 3.15(1) and 3.27(1) to the draft Housing Code contains additional restrictions on theability to incorporate an attached balcony, deck, patio, terrace or verandah. In particular, they canno longer be incorporated on the side or rear elevations of a dwelling where the lot is less than300m2 or has a width of less than 10m"

This proposed control appears to be overly restrictive. In particular, it is questioned what sort ofimpact such a structure would have if it was built at the ground level. It is recommended that theclause be revised to prevent such structures to the side or rear of a new dwelling on the excludedlands as suggested, but onlywhere the structure is located more than 600mm above ground level.It should be noted that the structures are still required to comply with the relevant setbackrequirements of the draft Housing Code.

RecommendøtíonClause 3.15(2) and 3.27(1) to the drøft Housíng Code be revísedto state that sbølcony,deck, patio, teruøce or verøndah thøt ís attached to the side or reør elevatíon of ødwellíng be only permitted on a lot íf:

(ø) the area of the lot ís more thøn 300m2, ønd(b) the balcony, deck, patío, tetace or verandah ís not located more than 600mm

above ground level.

Gross Floor Area

The draft Housing Code introduces the term 'Gross Floor Area,' which replaces the term 'floorarea' under the current Housing Code. The definitions under the Codes SEPP need to bereviewed and amended as appropriate to reflect the introduction of the new definition withoutimpacting on the intent of the remainder of the Codes SEPP.

RecommendøtionThe defìnitions under the Codes SEPP should be reviewed and amended asappropríøte to reflect the íntroductíon of a new definítíon for 'floor area' (i.e. theíntroductíon of 'Gross Floor Areø') without ímpacting on the íntent of the remaínderof the Codes SEPP.



-6-

Outbuildines

The current Housing Code makes reference to 'outbuildings,' but this term has been replacedwith 'detached development' under the draft Housing Code, including the incorporation of a newdefinition. The proposed amendments do not seek the removal of 'outbuildings' and replacementwith 'detached development.' This creates a level of confusion. It is therefore recommended that'outbuildings' be replaced with 'detached development' across the entire Codes SEPP for clarity.

RecommendøtíonTo provìde clarìty, ít ís recommended thøt thefollowíng addÍtíonøl parts of the CodesSEPP be amended such thøt the term 'outbuíldings' ís repløced wíth the term' detached development' :

Cløuse 1.5 (definítíons of 'ancílløry development,' 'floor area,' 'outbuíldíng');Clause 1.19(1) (Specífic land exemptíonsfor General Housíng Code and RurølHousíng Code);Part 3A Rural Housìng Code; andPørt 7 Demolítíon Code.

CONCLUSION

Council would again like to thank the DPE for its involvement to date and welcomes theopportunity for continued involvement in the review of the Codes SEPP.

If you have any further queries please contact Ben Boyd of Council's Strategic PlanningDepartment on 9936-8 1 00.

Yours faithfully,

Marcelo OcchiMANAGER STRATEGIC PLANNING

a

a

o

a



Documents

ECM 6867458 v1 CiS05 Draft Medium Density Housing Code ... · medium density housing types, such as dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces. The DPE has noted that there is a