In tough economic times when architects and developers are responding to a drive in the market for more affordable housing, the NSW planning powers are imposing “rigid rules” on building design, a leading body has said.
While architects are calling for SEPP 65 to be relaxed, some councils are actually introducing more stringent controls, Architecture & Design has learned.
The draft Design Excellence Development Control Plan (DCP) released by the City of Sydney last week is an example of the “craziness” the state is seeing and would be a “real worry” to the industry if it were adopted, Aaron Gadiel, CEO of the Urban Taskforce, said. The plan, which can be read here http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/OnExhibition/DraftDesignExcellenceDevelopmentControlPlan.asp
, will on public exhibition until 21 May 2009 and is to apply to the whole of the City of Sydney other than the central spine of land that is covered by the Sydney LEP 2005.
The DCP proposes that 15 per cent of an area must be dedicated to council for public open space on sites greater than 5,000m2. It also calls for at least five per cent of total dwellings on any site are to be terrace houses or maisonette, proposes a dwelling mix for developments in excess of 20 dwellings, and prescribes a minimum dwelling size for all residential development.
The rules proposed by the City of Sydney couldn’t come at a worse time, Gadiel said. “They will act as a major disincentive to developing in the City of Sydney — they will cost Sydney much-needed jobs and new homes.”
This comes as architects call for the revision of SEPP 65 and rail against councils which are seeking to impose more onerous rules.
Councils, such as Rockdale City Council, are considering increasing minimum ceiling heights from the 2.7 metres prescribed by SEPP 65 to 3 metres, while other councils are trying to increase the minimum apartment size, Jeremy Bishop, design director at nettletontribe, told Architecture & Design.
“In this market, you can’t keep increasing apartment size because there is a ceiling on the price that people can afford,” Bishop said.
“Councils are trying to push the bar on SEPP 65. Making it more onerous in these financial times in simply not viable,” he said.
However, Peter Smith, director of Sydney-based practice Habitation, told Architecture & Design that changing the SEPP 65 code in the current financial times could “open up a whole can of worms”.
While he agreed that recommended floor space sizes and balcony sizes needed to be “sensitized for location”, Smith is calling for more research to be done into building depths, daylight factors and the cross ventilation paths so that the figures that make up the code are based on of research and “not just picked out of the air”.
Peter Smith is working on identifying which parts of SEPP 65 need researching and is hoping to work with the universities to commission some of the research as well.
“We need the code to reflect our society’s values are and also the natural and physical environment we live in,” he said. “Quite often the numbers that go into these codes end up quite often being decided by committee and it depends on who is sitting around a table. I think it’s important that substantial and good research goes in behind these numbers so that they can be substantiated.”
