Small Lots Housing Code - Australian Institute of Architects
Small Lots Housing Code - Australian Institute of Architects Small Lots Housing Code - Australian Institute of Architects
There is concern about the extent of the site coverage on the small lots. Abetter outcome that will enable greater amenity on small lots will be achievedif the site coverage is reduced to 65% and the landscaping area increased to15%. Flexibility on the side setbacks, as noted above, will make this easilyachievable.Concern is also raised with the maximum dimensions for outbuildings on therear lane; the 6.0m height limit and the 50m 2 floor area limit will not provide ahabitable space above the garage. The height should be increased to 7.0mand the area increased to at least 60m 2 . An increase in allowable floor areawill enable the development of a more flexible and useable living space.Of particular concern are side and rear setbacks on south facing walls, wherethe need for solar access is proportionately greater than for north facing walls.We consider that it would be relatively simple to devise a developmentstandard for an increase of the setback in these situations, linked to acorresponding decrease in floor area. Victoria has a provision in theirPlanning Schemes (clause 54.04-4) where the upper portion of south facingwalls is required to be set back further - a setback of 0.6m for every 1m inheight. This provision can be easily accommodated into the currentframework. It may be appropriate to limit the application of this provision to therear 50% of the site, to enable economic and desirable use of the land asdiscussed above.In response to the question regarding the possible simplification of the formulafor determining side and rear setbacks on Page 8 of the discussion paper, theInstitute’s view is that there is sufficient standardization in the existing formula,and that the existing formula provides flexibility while delivering the desiredoutcome. In our view any further simplification would risk abuse, andconsequently a negative effect on the quality of the built environment,particularly with regard to development with a height in excess of 6.0m.The Institute supports the code as a standardized, metrics-driven planninginstrument that aims to simplify the development assessment process; itshould not include anything that could compromise built environmentoutcomes. The code’s primary purpose is therefore to provide clear guidanceon development constraints for the use of professionals in the housingindustry; it is not a simple ‘how-to’ manual for owner builders.3 BUILDING TO THE BOUNDARYThe Institute favours building to the side and front boundaries of small lotswherever appropriate, particularly as these lots are generally on land that isclose to retail and public transport and space is therefore at a premium. Webelieve that encouraging this form of development will over time help to createdenser inner city suburbs, as proposed in the Metropolitan Strategy, that willbe the modern equivalent of Paddington, Glebe and Surry Hills.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20103
We note the need for flexibility in building to the front boundary to allow for avariety of approaches to development within a specific street or precinctcontext. A maximum of 900mm should provide sufficient leeway to allow forthis difference.A review of the minimum lot area requirements contained in many LEPsshould be undertaken so as not to unnecessarily restrict the creation of smalllots in areas close to retail and public transport.4 ORIENTATIONOrientation is an issue on infill sites. It is as important that the new propertymakes use of its position on the lot for maximum solar access as it is toprevent it from encroaching on the solar access and privacy of its neighbours.It is recognised that this is difficult in the framework of the complying codes,as requiring a certain orientation may be contrary to the specific siteconditions. However the Department should encourage good orientationthrough the implementation of education material (discussed in 9 below).5 MINIMUM LOT AREA VS MINIMUM LOT WIDTHThe discussion paper seeks feedback on Page 6 regarding circumstanceswhere some lots may meet the minimum lot area requirement but not theminimum lot width requirement. The Institute considers that the solution to thisproblem, and to the problem of anomalies generally, is to apply only one ofthe criteria to each code, i.e. minimum lot area applies only to the generalhousing code and lot width requirements apply only to the small lot housingcode.6 HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREASThe Institute is confident that many of the developments in these areas thatcurrently require merit assessment could be encompassed by the codes,providing advice is sought from a council’s heritage advisor (where thisservice is provided) before lodging the application. A sensible balance can bestruck between the statutory force of the code and the provision of freeinformed advice to guide the owner’s practical and aesthetic decisions. Thiscould be managed through a pre-approval process - in a similar way togetting approval for a driveway or s68 approval.Many low-impact developments could be handled in this manner, usingvisibility from the public domain as the key criterion for determining whetherthe proposal should be approved. We understand that in a SEPP the use ofsuch a discretionary term is difficult, and that further work needs to be done todefine this term. The public domain may encompass more than the view fromAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)Small Lots Housing Code6 August 20104
- Page 1: Australian Instituteof ArchitectsSm
- Page 4 and 5: Australian Instituteof ArchitectsSm
- Page 6 and 7: INTRODUCTIONThe Institute welcomes
- Page 10 and 11: the opposite side of the street. Vi
There is concern about the extent <strong>of</strong> the site coverage on the small lots. Abetter outcome that will enable greater amenity on small lots will be achievedif the site coverage is reduced to 65% and the landscaping area increased to15%. Flexibility on the side setbacks, as noted above, will make this easilyachievable.Concern is also raised with the maximum dimensions for outbuildings on therear lane; the 6.0m height limit and the 50m 2 floor area limit will not provide ahabitable space above the garage. The height should be increased to 7.0mand the area increased to at least 60m 2 . An increase in allowable floor areawill enable the development <strong>of</strong> a more flexible and useable living space.Of particular concern are side and rear setbacks on south facing walls, wherethe need for solar access is proportionately greater than for north facing walls.We consider that it would be relatively simple to devise a developmentstandard for an increase <strong>of</strong> the setback in these situations, linked to acorresponding decrease in floor area. Victoria has a provision in theirPlanning Schemes (clause 54.04-4) where the upper portion <strong>of</strong> south facingwalls is required to be set back further - a setback <strong>of</strong> 0.6m for every 1m inheight. This provision can be easily accommodated into the currentframework. It may be appropriate to limit the application <strong>of</strong> this provision to therear 50% <strong>of</strong> the site, to enable economic and desirable use <strong>of</strong> the land asdiscussed above.In response to the question regarding the possible simplification <strong>of</strong> the formulafor determining side and rear setbacks on Page 8 <strong>of</strong> the discussion paper, the<strong>Institute</strong>’s view is that there is sufficient standardization in the existing formula,and that the existing formula provides flexibility while delivering the desiredoutcome. In our view any further simplification would risk abuse, andconsequently a negative effect on the quality <strong>of</strong> the built environment,particularly with regard to development with a height in excess <strong>of</strong> 6.0m.The <strong>Institute</strong> supports the code as a standardized, metrics-driven planninginstrument that aims to simplify the development assessment process; itshould not include anything that could compromise built environmentoutcomes. The code’s primary purpose is therefore to provide clear guidanceon development constraints for the use <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionals in the housingindustry; it is not a simple ‘how-to’ manual for owner builders.3 BUILDING TO THE BOUNDARYThe <strong>Institute</strong> favours building to the side and front boundaries <strong>of</strong> small lotswherever appropriate, particularly as these lots are generally on land that isclose to retail and public transport and space is therefore at a premium. Webelieve that encouraging this form <strong>of</strong> development will over time help to createdenser inner city suburbs, as proposed in the Metropolitan Strategy, that willbe the modern equivalent <strong>of</strong> Paddington, Glebe and Surry Hills.<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Architects</strong> (NSW)<strong>Small</strong> <strong>Lots</strong> <strong>Housing</strong> <strong>Code</strong>6 August 20103
Change language