SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ...
SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ... SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ...
In areas of significant development a single design review panel could provide advicefor Council DCP revisions and master plans relating to SEPP65 decisions and forJRPPs. Advice for non-SEPP 65 projects should be restricted to design issues, butcould refer to matters that cover a wider geographical area than a subject site.3.4 Should the meeting operating procedures for design review panels bemodified to promote consistency? Would a standard format for minutes andreports be useful? Should the meeting operating procedures for panels be setby the department or by the panel members and the relevant council(s)?There needs to be standardisation of meeting procedures, minutes and reports topromote greater consistency. The Department should provide a template prepared inconsultation with local government. Pre-DA meetings should be encouraged; thereshould be consistency between the recommendations made at the meeting and lateradvice provided by the panel. Currently most panels provide comment on each of the10 principles where relevant and incorporate RFDC issues under the appropriateheadings. An RFDC checklist may assist in clarity of advice along with the 10 designprinciples.3.5 What timeframe should apply to the provision of panel advice? Are therespecific ways that the timeframe can be reduced, for example requirement toprovide and finalise advice at the meeting, or use of a standard advicetemplate?Advice should be provided within two weeks of the panel meeting. Minutes andadvice templates will help to speed up the process.3.6 Should panel members be remunerated consistently? How should theoperational costs of panels be recouped? Should applicants pay a designreview panel fee per application, or a fee for each meeting where theirapplication is considered?Consistency in remuneration should be considered with the ability for review on ayearly basis. Other aspects that can be considered for outer metropolitan andregional panels with metropolitan representation is the charging of travel time, theone regional DRP in Hastings/Port Macquarie have agreed to charge the three tofour hours of travel time at half rates with Council paying for flights.3.7 Is there a need for the relationship between design review panels and otherpanels to be clarified? Would it be beneficial for existing panels to beexpanded to also provide design advice on SEPP 65 applications? Are thereother overlaps which need to be clarified? Should design competition juriesprovide advice in lieu of a SEPP 65 design review panel?See 3.3 above. A competition jury will not necessarily include a majority of architects(as required by the Institute’s competition code) and be skewed by developerconsiderations. Additionally a competition design may not be developed to a levelappropriate for SEPP 65 assessment. Winning designs should also be assessed by aDRP.3.8 Should the existing design review panel model be modified? What changeswould most benefit councils, applicants and panel members?Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20127
Design review panels should consist of design professionals only. They shouldprovide design advice to consent authorities, which need to record why they makedecisions on design aspects contrary to, or in addition to, a panel's advice.4 Residential Flat Design Code – general4.1 Should the relationship between the SEPP 65 design quality principles andthe Residential Flat Design Code be made clearer and strengthened? Whatwould be the best way to do this, for example through a matrix table, or bylisting the relevant design quality principles at the start of each element of theDesign Code, or another way?The Code should be structured around the principles, so that the guidelinesdemonstrate how observing the principles will lead to good design results. Matricesand tables are helpful; in some cases, however, they may represent a failure ofcommunication. The Code should illustrate what the SEPP is saying.4.5 What is the best approach to ensure that the development applications forSEPP 65 are accompanied by a consistent standard and appropriate level ofinformation? Would standard checklists detailing information requirements forpre DA and DA stages be useful?Yes – and examples given in the Code along with checklists for Council’s own DCPcontrols that should also be completed for project reviews by Councils for the DRPs.4.6 What measures could be refined or added to the Residential Flat DesignCode that would further support housing affordability?Affordability does not rely on design quality; it is dependant on many variablesincluding interest rates, government charges and tax policy resulting in amanipulation of the property market to achieve social ends. City West Housing, forexample, aims to achieve a design quality equal to or better than neighbouringprivate developments, which does not necessarily add to overall costs and canreduce long term maintenance costs.5 Residential Flat Design Code – Part 15.1 Would more guidance on the interface of residential flat buildings with theircontext and streetscape be useful? What type of additional information wouldassist most?The examples in the discussion paper are all sound, however councils should be‘designing’ their precincts before a project is even proposed. It is not theresponsibility of individual owners to ‘plan’ a precinct, however it is the responsibilityof an owner/developer to provide clear analysis of their project within a local contextwith the ‘block’ being the smallest unit of context showing both sides of the street andother information required. A standard minimum standard of site analysis may berequired in the RFDC. Demonstration by examples would assist planners anddevelopers.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20128
- Page 1 and 2: Australian Institute ofArchitectsSE
- Page 3 and 4: Where does the Institute rank as a
- Page 5 and 6: CONTENTSPageA GENERAL 1Guidelines o
- Page 8 and 9: the area as a whole. The structure
- Page 10 and 11: outside the SEPP when in specific t
- Page 14 and 15: 5.2 Would defining different contex
- Page 16 and 17: A checklist would set a minimum sta
- Page 18 and 19: example access to daylight and natu
- Page 20: 8.2 Should controls be prepared for
<strong>Design</strong> review panels should consist of design professionals only. They shouldprovide design advice to consent authorities, which need to record why they makedecisions on design aspects contrary to, or in addition to, a panel's advice.4 <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Flat</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Code</strong> – general4.1 Should the relationship between the <strong>SEPP</strong> <strong>65</strong> design quality principles andthe <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Flat</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Code</strong> be made clearer and strengthened? Whatwould be the best way to do this, for example through a matrix table, or bylisting the relevant design quality principles at the start of each element of the<strong>Design</strong> <strong>Code</strong>, or another way?The <strong>Code</strong> should be structured around the principles, so that the guidelinesdemonstrate how observing the principles will lead to good design results. Matricesand tables are helpful; in some cases, however, they may represent a failure ofcommunication. The <strong>Code</strong> should illustrate what the <strong>SEPP</strong> is saying.4.5 What is the best approach to ensure that the development applications for<strong>SEPP</strong> <strong>65</strong> are accompanied by a consistent standard and appropriate level ofinformation? Would standard checklists detailing information requirements forpre DA and DA stages be useful?Yes – and examples given in the <strong>Code</strong> along with checklists for Council’s own DCPcontrols that should also be completed for project reviews by Councils for the DRPs.4.6 What measures could be refined or added to the <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Flat</strong> <strong>Design</strong><strong>Code</strong> that would further support housing affordability?Affordability does not rely on design quality; it is dependant on many variablesincluding interest rates, government charges and tax policy resulting in amanipulation of the property market to achieve social ends. City West Housing, forexample, aims to achieve a design quality equal to or better than neighbouringprivate developments, which does not necessarily add to overall costs and canreduce long term maintenance costs.5 <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Flat</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Code</strong> – Part 15.1 Would more guidance on the interface of residential flat buildings with theircontext and streetscape be useful? What type of additional information wouldassist most?The examples in the discussion paper are all sound, however councils should be‘designing’ their precincts before a project is even proposed. It is not theresponsibility of individual owners to ‘plan’ a precinct, however it is the responsibilityof an owner/developer to provide clear analysis of their project within a local contextwith the ‘block’ being the smallest unit of context showing both sides of the street andother information required. A standard minimum standard of site analysis may berequired in the RFDC. Demonstration by examples would assist planners anddevelopers.<strong>Australian</strong> Institute of Architects (NSW)<strong>SEPP</strong> <strong>65</strong> & <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Flat</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Code</strong> <strong>Review</strong>24 February 20128
Change language