Attachment 1
DETAILED SUBMISSION
BACKGROUND – The Review Process
In September 2003, Councillors met with the General Management Team and planning staff over the course of a weekend to identify ways to review and revitalise the planning and development control functions of the City. At the conclusion of the weekend workshop, 41 actions were identified including the need for a revision of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2001 (DCP).
It was acknowledged at the workshop that the DCP required improvements in order to address inconsistencies, to simplify, improve clarity and make it more effective in producing quality design outcomes. A project team comprising staff from Land Use and Transport Planning and the Development Assessment Services Team subsequently commenced a review of the DCP.
A workshop was held at the beginning of the process with a larger group of staff from both teams to identify desirable features of a revised DCP. Following work by the project team to re-format and re-word the DCP, a workshop with Councillors was held in October 2004 to seek feedback on the format, structure and content of the DCP. The workshops emphasised the need for a DCP that is simple, legible, internally consistent, has clear objectives, lacks unnecessary duplication and provides a strong link between standards and their underlying objectives. The approach taken in re-formatting the DCP was endorsed as a means of meeting these objectives.
Whilst the review of the DCP was not intended as a major review of development controls, it was recognised that some changes would be necessary to achieve the project objectives. In particular, the design outcomes being achieved for multi-unit housing (townhouses) were considered to be poor and as a result, a detailed review of the DCP controls for this form of development was undertaken. A Councillor workshop was held in March 2005 to consider the draft revised townhouse controls. This workshop also considered other provisions in the proposed DCP, including granny flats, special character areas and exempt and complying development.
A revised draft DCP has been prepared for the next phase of the process, being consultation with the community through a public exhibition of the draft document. Some stakeholders are aware that work has been occurring for review of the DCP. A forum was held with local designers in November 2004 to discuss changes and improvements to the development system at which mention was made of the review of the DCP.
DESIGN
A new innovative design will accompany the revised DCP which includes an interactive electronic CD and web version. The aim is to support interpretation and design and encourage sustainability through reduced production cost and paper use. A print version will also be available when required.
Diagrams and illustrations are being prepared to support the text of the draft DCP. Design/architectural consultants are working to produce these and are also developing the electronic version of the DCP that will incorporate these graphics with the text. The draft DCP can proceed to exhibition while the graphics work is being developed, as the substance, including the proposed structure and content is available in the text version and forms the fundamental elements of the DCP.
REVISED STRUCTURE
The draft DCP has streamlined the format of the current DCP to remove duplication of and inconsistencies in controls by cutting down on the number of ‘layers’ in the document that have to be worked through.
The draft revised version of the DCP is formatted under headings of General Principles, which are statements of design outcomes, so as to align design standards (controls) with these outcomes. Good design outcomes are not necessarily achieved by numerical compliance with DCP controls. Flexibility of numerical controls which are aligned with design objectives is a better way of achieving good design and clear controls.
Design standards for particular forms of development (dwelling houses, dual occupancies, townhouses etc) are therefore dispersed under the relevant General Principles in Part 4 of the draft DCP.
An exception to this is the design standards which establish the building envelope such as height and setback controls, which do not to relate solely to one general principle. For example, the height control relates to many objectives including, building form and massing, streetscape, solar access, privacy etc. The building envelope controls for different types of development have been placed in Part 3 of the draft DCP, referred to as the Preliminary Building Envelope tables.
This Part precedes the General Principles and provides a convenient and quick “ready-reckoner” for those wishing to get an idea of what basic three-dimensional building form their development will be required to take. The General Principles are then applied to the three-dimensional ‘frame’ to further ‘mould’ the building’s form to achieve the desired outcomes of the DCP. The preliminary building envelope table will be particularly useful for minor developments that are not complex in nature and will not be significantly impacted by the general principles.
Other changes to the format of the DCP to streamline the document involve the removal of information content that is either contained in other planning documents or is un-necessary within the DCP and can be contained in a separate booklet such as information that needs to be submitted with a DA (refer to Attachment 3 for further details).
PROPOSED DCP CHANGES
The main changes to the DCP are summarised in Attachment 3. Some of the more significant changes are discussed below.
Townhouses
The draft revised standards for townhouses were referred to architectural/design consultants who tested them and made further revisions to produce standards that will improve the designs of this form of development. Particular emphasis is placed on the achievement of town house developments that are more suited to the suburban context in their scale, form and massing, that are designed to more appropriately fit within the character of suburban streetscapes, with better privacy, amenity and landscaping.
Additionally, arising from the Councillor workshop on 9 March 2005, it was suggested that on sites large enough to accommodate a second row of townhouses, the second row could be restricted to single storey and that this outcome should be further tested. The consultants tested this design option, which would introduce a better mix of dwelling sizes in townhouse developments and reduce privacy and amenity impacts of building bulk and height. The testing indicated the following:
· Single storey townhouses with an attic permitted in the roof was indicated as the best outcome to fit the floorspace ratio (FSR) of 0.6:1 and to work best with the other controls such as setbacks, landscaping and deep soil zone. The revised controls for roof and attic design proposed in the draft DCP to limit the bulk and height of roof forms and to address privacy impacts from attic windows, would apply to attics in single storey townhouses. The attic allows for a second bedroom to be provided. Without an attic, single storey townhouses would be likely to contain only one bedroom.
· Single storey townhouses with no attic permitted would result in townhouse developments that fall short of the allowable FSR. As a result, to gain more floorspace, applicants would be likely to seek to extend the building footprint and vary the standards for landscaping, deep soil and setbacks etc. Where applicants seek to maximise the number of dwellings in their development by providing the minimum size dwelling, single storey townhouses with no attic could be small one bedroom dwellings approximately 70sqm is floor area and with only one bedroom. Greater flexibility in the size of townhouses would be achieved by allowing an attic in a single storey dwelling.
· The testing also included a single storey component in townhouse developments that are in a single row that runs perpendicular to the street (ie. where dwellings face the side boundary rather than the street, often referred to as ‘gun-barrel’ developments). In these circumstances it is proposed that the row of townhouses be permitted to be two storeys for the first 20 metres and then reduced to single storey (with attic permitted) for any additional building length.
The single storey design outcomes for the second row of townhouses and the rear section of ‘gun-barrel’ townhouse developments have been incorporated into the draft DCP with the allowance of attics, which will be subject the proposed new controls for roof design, privacy controls for attic windows and cross ventilation.
Residential Flat Buildings
Design standards for residential flat buildings have been simplified by removing the emphasis on site orientation (north/south, east/west and various other combinations) as a determinant of controls, which has been confusing, unnecessarily complicated and has often resulted in poor streetscapes. The draft revised provisions have been considered and accepted by Council’s Design Review Panel. The main changes are included in the table in Attachment 3. A summary of the consultation with the Design Review Panel is included in Attachment 6.
Dual Occupancies
Design standards for dual occupancies have also been simplified by removing the emphasis on site orientation. Current requirements are overly complex with controls distinguished according to site position/orientation. General principles in the draft revised DCP require a more balanced consideration of streetscape and solar access. It is also proposed to address the bulk and scale issues of dual occupancies by a proposed reduction in the floorspace ratio from 0.6:1 to 0.5:1. This is discussed in more detail in the section on proposed LEP amendments.
Special Character Areas
The Special Character Areas (SCA) have been reviewed and as a result, seven of the eight areas currently contained in the DCP are included in the revised draft DCP. These are:
1. All Saints Cemetery Precinct, North Parramatta
2. Thomas and Lombard Streets, Northmead
3. Hillside Estate, Ermington
4. Jeffery Avenue, North Parramatta
5. Sutherland Road, North Parramatta
6. Sylvia Gardens, Northmead
7. Winston Hills
Ermington Estate SCA is recommended to be removed as a SCA due to the redevelopment in this area that has removed its special character values.
As part of the review, consultants were engaged to investigate the status of Winston Hills SCA and Ermington Estate SCA, due to preliminary investigations which indicated that these areas may no longer meet the requirements for being special character areas.
The consultants endorsed the removal of Ermington Estate as a special character area due to the extent of redevelopment that has substantially removed the special character of this area that was derived from the scale, form and character of the houses.
The consultants consider that Winston Hills continues to exhibit its special character which relates not only to the overall consistency of scale and form of the housing but also to the subdivision and road pattern that reflects its development as a planned neighbourhood. The consultants also advise that some of the controls over housing in the area could be relaxed without impacting on the special character to allow some flexibility in building materials. This includes allowing rendering of brickwork, allowing construction in materials other than brick and tile only and allowing some second storey additions provided they are positioned appropriately and do not detract from streetscapes that are characterised by predominantly single storey dwellings. The draft revised DCP therefore includes some amendments to introduce this flexibility.
Minor changes proposed for other special character areas include:
- a reduction in the geographic extent of the Sutherland Road, North Parramatta SCA to reflect the erosion of the character to a small section (10 lots south of Gilbert Street)
- minor wording changes to improve the clarity of the provisions for the other SCAs
- permit cladding of fibro dwellings in either similar light-weight materials or in brick, particularly if rendered in Sylvia Gardens SCA
Note: Neighbourhood Character Areas, as distinct from Special Character Areas, represent broad areas characterised by housing style. The draft revised DCP includes the neighbourhood character areas as a guide to the housing styles in different areas that can be used to assist in developing contemporary design of new housing that fits sympathetically with existing local context.
Exempt & Complying Development
A working group from the Development Services Unit has reviewed the exempt and complying provisions in the DCP. Exempt development is minor development that does not require development consent. Complying development is development with minimal environmental impact that satisfies pre-determined development standards and is issued a Complying Development Certificate either by Council or a private certifier.
The exempt development provisions have been reviewed to make them consistent with SEPP 4 – Development Without Consent (in particular rainwater tank provisions), to improve interpretation and more clearly reflect the requirements for fencing, carports and minor external alterations for Special Character Areas. Minor adjustments are proposed to the minimum dimensions for some structures to qualify as exempt development, such as decks, cabanas and gazebos from 10sqm to 20sqm. The maximum size may not be achievable in all cases as there is a cumulative maximum area (10% of the site area) for certain structures that are able to be constructed as exempt development. A new provision is also proposed to protect the amount of deep soil zone. Hoardings are proposed to be removed as exempt development.
The complying development provisions have been reviewed to update some standards, clarify the provisions and make them easier to follow. It is proposed to increase the gross floor area for a single storey dwelling house that qualifies as complying development from 120sqm to 220sqm in order to reflect a more realistic size typical of a project home. However, the floor space ratio (FSR) must not exceed 0.45:1 to protect against over-development of sites and garages are included in the FSR. Awnings, pergolas, cabanas and gazebos are proposed to a maximum of 30sqm gross floor area, increased from 20sqm, with a maximum finished floor level of 300mm above natural ground. The maximum cumulative area of all awnings, pergolas, canopies, cabanas and gazebos is 50sqm, which is intended to prevent the cumulative impact of individual structures resulting in excessive use of these provisions.
The standard conditions that are applied to all Complying Development Certificates have been reviewed and additional conditions are proposed to address demolition requirements, protection of Council property, arrangements for adjustments to public utility services and submission of plans to Sydney Water.