expanding complying development to include low-rise medium ... · to include low-rise medium...
Post on 11-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Expanding complying development to include low-rise medium density housing types
How community housing can deliver solutions to NSW’ affordable housing crisis NSW’ prosperity and future growth is limited by its housing affordability crisis. The growing disparity between income and rental price growth has resulted in a chronic undersupply of affordable rental dwellings in NSW. The National Housing Supply Council estimated that NSW had the highest supply gap rate at 89,000 homes. Faster and improved development approval processes for low-rise medium density housing types can, in part, assist with NSW’ housing shortage. What is community housing?
Not-for-profit community housing providers (CHPs) have been providing high quality rental housing for people on very low to moderate incomes for over three decades. Our NSW sector contains the largest, most accomplished, dynamic and professionally led organisations in Australia. With over 38,000 tenancies, our 27 leading organisations manage more homes than Victoria and Queensland providers combined. The sector has low rent arrears, minimal vacancy rates, and high tenant satisfaction. In the latest AIHW survey, nearly twice as many community housing tenants (39%) were very satisfied with their landlord compared to public housing (22%). Recommendations The NSW Federation of Housing Associations (the Federation) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on behalf of its members to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s (the Department) proposal to expand the range of low-rise residential development that can be undertaken as complying development across NSW1. The Federation and its members met with the Department last year to discuss exempt and complying developments. Our members highlighted how the current Development Application system is time consuming, inconsistent and generally cumbersome. The Federation generally welcomes the changes suggested by the Department with specific feedback offered below.
1 Individual member views may differ from statements made in this submission.
General improvements
The Department’s proposal to provide planning controls for medium density housing (known as the ‘missing middle’) will benefit the supply of affordable housing across NSW. There is a clear argument for allowing medium density housing as a form of complying development particularly in R2 zones. A faster and more efficient approval process will reduce development costs and circumvent restrictive regulations imposed by some councils. Given LAHC’s large numbers of deteriorating housing properties in R2 zones, the expansion of complying development approvals would assist with the delivery of affordable housing for the Government’s Future Directions initiative. Expanding the range development that can be undertaken as complying development will also provide more opportunities for the NDIS. At present, it is not clear how the number of dwellings required can be delivered under the planning regime. Allowing medium density housing as a form of complying development will assist in this process. There have been several instances where medium density government properties (transferred to CHPs) need to be sold in the long term. These sales are a result of poor redevelopment prospects due to community opposition. Although Council rejections to redevelopment are successfully appealed in Court, this process is both time consuming and expensive for CHPs. Applying the complying development framework to these transferred properties will have the added benefit of permitting low density affordable housing options that are widely dispersed across NSW, particularly in areas lacking an adequate supply of this housing type. The complying development framework will also allow areas to retain its social housing stock and offer its residents a higher quality of life. Higher density affordable housing developments can be more costly and in many cases, less desired by local communities. The Federation strongly recommends that the Department consider inclusion of relaxed complying development controls for CHPs when developing affordable housing. Development by CHPs is generally characterised by dwellings smaller than that provided by the private market. This increases our ability to comply with building envelope controls and/ or increase dwelling yield. Due to construction cost constraints we are generally unable to provide basement parking. Our experience is that providing less parking at grade, provides a better outcome which enables alternative designs. We would like these considered for inclusion in the new complying development controls and limited to developments, which will be used as affordable housing for ten years. This could be enforced by standard conditions of consent. The remainder of this submission provides further feedback on the following topics:
1. Dual occupancies (2 dwellings) 2. Manor Homes (3-4 dwellings) 3. Townhouses and terraces (3-10 dwellings) 4. Further issues for consideration
1. Dual occupancies (2 dwellings)
Table 1.1: Dual occupancy questions
What do you think? Comment
Should the development of dual occupancies on a single lot as complying development be permitted in R1, R2 and R3 zones?
Yes.
Should the minimum frontage be reduced to 14m so that the construction of 2 dwellings on a single lot can be carried out as complying development on more existing lots?
Yes. The minimum could be reduced to 13.5 metres and still allow adequate space for vehicles, pedestrian access, waste and appropriate landscaping.
Should the height be limited to 8.5m? Yes. 8.5 metres will be consistent with low density residential areas. The number of storeys should be limited to two.
Should attic rooms be permitted? No. Attic spaces may create impacts and should require a DA to Council.
Should 2.7m floor to ceiling heights be imposed?
Yes. Minimum 2.7m ceiling heights are appropriate as provides living spaces with high amenity and good access to natural light and ventilation. However, special considerations should be given to developments proposed on sloping sites. 2.7m ceiling decreases the flexibility to deliver buildings specially designed for wheelchair access or adaptable dwellings. Greater leeway should be provided to ensure specialised dwellings are approved.
Should eaves and roof overhangs be required to comply with the envelope control?
No. The BCA provides adequate safeguards.
Would the application of a 1.2m setback and no building envelope be easier to implement?
Yes. The building envelope control is too difficult to immediately comprehend for most people and may require a designer to test. Controls for setbacks, building heights and, if required, building wall heights in metres with clear definitions will prevent confusion and enable early decision making in the development process –particularly as practitioners get used to the controls.
Should Torrens title subdivision of 2 dwellings on a single lot be permitted as complying development?
Yes.
Should subdivision be permitted only after the buildings are completed?
Yes. However, there should be no requirement for an additional planning approval post-construction. The subdivision (where sought) should be approved under the same application
as the design. In addition the conditions of consent must be carefully worded as speculative subdivision can result in unacceptable planning impacts which must be avoided.
Table 1.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for dual occupancy development
Primary Standards Control Comment on standard Minimum lot size Supported. Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 15 to 14 metres. Design Standards Control Comment on standard Maximum building height
Supported. Limit to 2 storeys in R2 zone. Permit attic space in R3 zone.
Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metres setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.
Minimum floor to ceiling height
Supported. Less than 2.7 metres not supported.
Garage/parking setback Not supported. This is excessively prescriptive and limits options for at grade parking and dwelling layouts. Parking structures should be permitted at the front building line provided:
• a ground floor habitable room window of at least one dwelling fronts the street and
• parking structures do not take up more than 45% of the width of the street frontage.
To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street. This will also allow for an additional off-street parking space.
Rear setback 6 metres supported for dual occupancy development. 25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey component only.
Minimum side boundary setback
Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites. 1 storey 900mm 2 storey 1.2 metres 2 storey 1.2 metres (BCA class 2 building) Do not include eaves in side setback requirement.
Minimum landscaped area
Not supported. Reduce to 25%.
Minimum width of landscaped area
Supported.
Minimum driveway setback
Not supported. Consider 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of development on narrow deep lots.
Minimum private open space
Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. Private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following rates: 1 bedroom 9m2 3m X 3m 2 bedroom 16m2 4m X 4m 3 bedroom 25m2
5m X 5m Minimum car parking provision
Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.
Subdivision Standards Control Comment on standard Minimum subdivision lot size
Supported.
Additional controls for dual occupancy development:
• Do not permit symmetrical/ mirror reverse building facades fronting the street. • For Torrens title subdivision of semi-detached dwellings prohibit non-symmetrical
subdivision of standard lots.
2. Manor Homes (3-4 dwellings)
Table 2.1: Manor Homes questions
What do you think? Comment
Which zones would be appropriate for manor homes?
R2 and R3. Controls might be stricter for the R2 zone e.g. no basement parking and two storeys only at the front. The Department should consider permitting Manor homes in the R4 Zone on residual or isolated lots through a maximum site area control e.g. 750m2. This is appropriate where the height limit permits three storeys.
Consideration should be given to parking at ground floor with 2 storey constructions and limiting the height to 9m.
Should manor homes only be permitted on corner lots or lots with dual street access?
No. The impacts of this type of development on sites with a single frontage can be managed under complying development controls.
Instead of council certification of On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) and waste, could certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided?
Yes. Provided the specialist is an accredited certifier and subject to the Building Professionals Board.
How should the proposed car parking controls be designed to ensure that adverse impacts on the transport network (including on-street parking) are minimised and active transport options are encouraged?
Where development is being undertaken by a Community Housing Provider for the purposes of Affordable Housing. The ARHSEPP parking rates should be applied.
Should subdivision only be permitted after the buildings have been completed?
Yes. Speculative subdivision must be avoided.
Table 1.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for Manor Homes
Primary Standards
Control Comment on standard
Minimum lot size Supported.
Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 15 to 14 metres. A high level of amenity can still be attained, particularly for smaller dwellings.
Design Standards
Control Comment on standard
Maximum building height
Supported. Limit to 2 storeys in R2 zone. Permit attic space in R3 zone.
Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metre setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.
Minimum floor to ceiling height
Supported. Less than 2.7 metres not supported.
Garage/parking setback Not supported. This is excessively prescriptive and limits options for at grade parking and dwelling layouts. Parking structures should be permitted at the front building line provided:
• a ground floor habitable room window of at least one dwelling fronts the street and
• parking structures do not take up more than 45% of the width of the street frontage.
To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street (allows for an additional off-street parking space).
Rear setback Consider reducing to 4 metres for single storey component of development. 25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey
component only.
Minimum side boundary setback
Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites.
1 storey 900mm
2 storey 1.2 metres
2 storey 1.5 metres (BCA class 2 building)
Do not include eaves in side setback requirement.
Minimum landscaped area
Not supported. Reduce to 20% for Manor Homes.
Consider separate controls for soft and hardscaping.
Minimum width of landscaped area
Supported.
Minimum driveway setback
Not supported. Consider requiring 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of dual occupancy and manor home development on narrow deep lots.
Minimum private open space
Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following minimum rates:
1 bedroom 9m2 3m X 3m
2 bedroom 16m2 4m X 4m
3 bedroom 25m2 5m X 5m
The following minimum sizes are recommended for dwellings relying on balconies:
1 bedroom 6m2 2m X 3m
2 bedroom 8m2 2m X 4m
3 bedroom 12m2 2.4m X 5m
Note: These rates are more relevant to townhouse and villa forms of development.
Minimum car parking provision
Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with
paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.
Subdivision Standards
Control Standard
Minimum subdivision lot size
Supported.
3. Townhouses and terraces (3-10 dwellings)
Table 3.1: Townhouses and terraces questions
What do you think? Comment
In which zones should the development of 3-10 dwellings be permitted?
R2 and R3 zones.
With decreasing housing affordability the Federation has called for 30% of affordable housing should be incorporated into development projects. This proposal is gaining traction across the sector which suggests complying development should be permitted in R2 and R3 zones that includes affordable housing. This would substantially assist CHPs in the delivery of affordable housing.
Controls should be stricter for R2 zones e.g. basement parking and attic spaces prohibited or introduce development standards which result in compatible residential character i.e. two storeys only at the front.
Instead of council certification of on-site stormwater detention (OSD) and waste storage, could certification by appropriately qualified specialists be provided?
Yes.
The proposed controls do not permit the use of attic rooms. Should attic rooms in the roof be permitted to be carried out as complying development?
Yes. Only in the R3 zone.
Is the building envelope necessary in this instance? A minimum 2.0m setback already dictates a maximum height of 7.5m above ground level before the building envelope would be breached.
Building envelope controls are not necessary and difficult to comprehend.
As development is limited to 8.5m (2 storeys), is it necessary to also have an envelope control?
Side setback controls should work with building height and building wall height and be expressed in metres.
Minimum side setbacks should be vary depending on the location of the building on site. Buildings facing the street should be 0.9 metres for single storey, 1.5 metres for the second storey.
Is the building envelope control as proposed easy to apply?
The building envelope controls as expressed do not always work on sites with steep gradients. This should become clear if the Department tests the controls on sloping land. It is likely sites will be excluded from the complying development pathway while other nearby land is captured. It could also result in inconsistent side setbacks resulting in undesirable streetscape impacts.
Should the proposed car parking controls be consistent with the requirements of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or should the relevant council controls for parking apply?
Where development is being undertaken by Community Housing Providers for the purposes of affordable housing and is within an ‘Accessible Area’ as defined by the ARHSEPP then the parking rates required by that instrument should apply.
Table 3.2: Comments on summary of suggested controls for townhouses and terraces
Primary Standards
Control Comment on standard
Minimum lot size Not supported. Consider reducing to 550m2.
Minimum frontage Strongly support reducing from 18 to 16.5metres to enable ‘triplex’ townhouse designs on wider single lots.
Design Standards
Control Comment on standard
Maximum building height
Supported. Limit to 2 storeys in R2 zone. Permit attic space in R3 zone.
Minimum front setback The average of two adjoining properties may not be appropriate in areas where the desired future character is changing. In many areas this would require a 7-9 metre setback despite new development being required to be 6 metres by Council controls.
Minimum floor to ceiling height
Supported. Less than 2.7 metres not supported.
Garage/parking setback Not supported. This is excessively prescriptive and limits options for at grade parking and dwelling layouts. Parking structures should be permitted at the front building line provided:
• a ground floor habitable room window of at least one dwelling fronts the street and
• parking structures do not take up more than 45% of the width of the street frontage.
To encourage parking structures behind the front building line, require a minimum 5.5 metre deep space in front of parking structures which face the street (allows for an additional off-street parking space).
Rear setback Strongly recommend reducing to 4 metres for single storey component of development.
25% of side boundary rule supported for two storey component only.
Minimum side boundary setback
Building envelope control not supported. Too complicated. May not work on sloping sites.
1 storey 900mm
2 storey 1.2 metres
2 storey 1.5 metres (BCA class 2 building)
Side boundary setback for dwellings which do not face the street should increased to two metres.
Including eaves in side setback requirement not supported.
Minimum landscaped area
Supported.
Consider separate controls for soft and hardscaping.
Minimum width of landscaped area
Supported.
Minimum driveway setback
Not supported. Consider requiring 1 metre driveway setback only in front setback to avoid gun barrel driveways. Driveways should be permitted to abut side boundaries where there is a need to bring at grade parking behind the front building e.g. combinations of development on narrow deep lots.
Minimum private open space
Not supported. To encourage a variety of dwelling sizes. private open space requirement should be varied based on dwelling size at the following rates:
1 bedroom 9m2 3m X 3m
2 bedroom 16m2 4m X 4m
3 bedroom 25m2 5m X 5m
The following minimum sizes are recommended for dwellings relying on balconies:
1 bedroom 6m2 2m X 3m
2 bedroom 8m2 2m X 4m
3 bedroom 12m2 2.4m X 5m
Note: These rates are more relevant to townhouse and villa forms of development.
Minimum car parking provision
Supported however in the case of development for the purposes of affordable housing these should be varied to be consistent with paragraph 14(2)(a) of the ARHSEPP.
Subdivision Standards
Control Standard
Minimum subdivision lot size
Supported.
4. Further issues for consideration
Table 4.1: Further issues and questions
What do you think? Response
Is it appropriate to permit excavation for basement car parking as complying development?
Yes. However, the Department should have regard to the potential impacts when formulating the controls.
Is up-front certification by council for On-Site Stormwater Detention (OSD) appropriate?
Yes.
Is it acceptable to have independent certification of OSD against council’s policies?
Yes. However many Council’s will need to improve their policies to a consistent standard.
Should proposed waste management facilities be certified by councils as part of the process?
Yes. As an alternative to independent certification.
Could independent certification of compliance with a council’s waste management provisions in their DCP be the appropriate mechanism?
Yes.
What proportion of new housing should be adaptable housing?
Adaptable housing is difficult to provide on small two-storey sites. Where basement parking is provided, a lift or extensive ramping will be needed. Stair lifts may be appropriate.
Development scale
less than 6 dwellings no requirement
6-8 dwellings one
9-10 dwellings two
Site conditions
Sites with inappropriate gradients should not be required to provide adaptable housing. Some sites will not be able to comply with the Australian Standard without extensive design impacts or falling out of the complying development pathway. More testing with regard to design outcomes should occur before adaptable housing requirements are introduced.
How easy is the envelope control to understand?
This control takes time to comprehend and should be replaced by setbacks and height limits expressed in metres.
Is an envelope control necessary given the combination of controls proposed?
No.
For development involving 2 dwellings, should the side setback control simply be mandated at 1.2m for ease of implementation and assessment?
For dual occupancies setback control stated in metres is preferred. 1.2 metres is appropriate for a two storey Class 1a building facing the street or 900mm for a single storey building.
Should the setback be 1.5m for easier BCA compliance?
For class 2 Buildings (Manor Homes) the side setback should be 1.5 metres.
Does the suite of suggested controls provide sufficient certainty of the built form outcome and management of potential impacts?
Mostly yes. There should be more scenario and design testing against the proposed controls.
Are there further controls that may assist in delivering positive outcomes?
• FSR controls will provide more certainty in decision making early on in the development process.
• To encourage dwelling diversity, private open space controls should be refined based on dwelling sizes.
• ARHSEPP parking controls should be applied for affordable housing developments.
• Driveways which serve less than three parking spaces should not be required to exit in a forward direction (consistent with controls for dual occupancies).
Should guidance on dwelling size be provided?
Yes, recommended minimum sizes:
1 bed 50m2
2 bed 70m2
3 bed 95m2
Are there other matters that should be addressed as conditions of consent?
Where standards are relaxed (e.g. parking) application of a standard affordable housing condition of consent.
Public consultation for primary standards
Some consideration should be given to reduced public notification/exhibition for development that is specifically associated with NDIS or group home housing.
Primary Standard – Minimum lot size & minimum frontage
We are supportive of the proposal to allow two dwellings on a 400m2 lot within R1, R2 and R3 zones.
Complying Development Certificates (CDC) For developments proposed as a CDC, consideration should include an assessment by a qualified town planner who is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and who is also a Certified Practising Planner. This would ensure that town planners continue to play a role in development approvals.
Further options for the Department’s consideration
Dwelling orientation
The requirement to position dwellings perpendicular to the street should be reconsidered. Dwellings adjacent to the street should always face the street, however dwellings facing side boundaries are in many instances appropriate, particularly when they are single storey. Impacts would be better managed by requiring larger setbacks for dwellings with a side orientation. We recommend five metres. An example of this type of development in included in Attachment A.
Density controls
To improve certainty of development outcomes the Department should consider introducing maximum density controls (e.g. FSR) which are calibrated with the setback, landscaping and height controls. The ability of developers to anticipate dwelling yield outcomes during feasibility is greatly improved through the application of density controls.
Stormwater management
Sites that slope away from the road reservation and cannot readily achieve gravity fed drainage to the street network should be permitted to use pump out systems or a charged stormwater system. The requirement to obtain an inter-allotment drainage easement will often curtail low rise medium density housing developments.
Landscaping
The Department should consider including landscape controls and standards for replacement vegetation.
Triplex buildings (3 Townhouses or terraces)
The Department should consider ‘triplex’ townhouse designs on smaller lots. An example of this type of development is included in Attachment B. Reducing the minimum frontage width to 16.5 metres and site area to 550m2 would facilitate this type of development on a larger number of sites. This type of development achieves a high level of amenity for residents and neighbours and is compatible with the character of R2 zone.
Dual occupancies + secondary dwellings
The Department should consider the option of a dual occupancy + attached secondary dwelling complying development approval pathway. This is currently possible via a DA however these applications are being refused by Councils. This type of development is able to achieve compliance with Council’s DCP controls. Although similar to Manor Homes, this type of development should be applicable to the R2 zone or where dual occupancies are permitted. An example of this type of development is in included in Attachment C.
Recommended development standards are as follows:
Min lot size 500m2 Min lot width 15 metres Max FSR as per LEP Max secondary dwelling size 60m2 Torrens subdivision permissible Front setback 4.5 metres/ average of adjoining Side setback 1.5 metres Rear setback 6 metres
Summary The Department’s commitment to improving medium density residential development across NSW is welcomed by the Federation. These improvements will assist in effectively addressing the affordable housing crisis across the state.
Attachment A
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
Sydney
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
20.1
5
45.38
5
EASEMENTDRAINAGE COUNCIL
13.355
34.18
34.14
34.66
34.63
34.16
34.96
35.19
RL35.26PIT
INV 34.91
VERTSEWER
35.0
34.5
36.49
36.36
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
WW
W
20.1
5
43.71
45.38
5
EASEMENTDRAINAGE COUNCIL
13.355
34.18
34.14
34.66
34.63
34.16
34.96
35.59
34.71 35.19
RL35.26PIT
INV 34.91
VERTSEWER
13.0
75
A13.1
6
35.0
34.5
35.5
35.5
36.0
1:200 @ A3
DA 602
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING No:
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT No:
www.modedesign.com.au
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
Architect R P O’Brien Registration No 7176
S h o p 1 35 B u c k i n g h a m S t 13076SYD
DEC 2014
LOT 36 DP35213
9 Rixon Street, Bass Hill NSW
FOR APPROVAL
UNITS 1-3
NO. 53STRICKLAND ST
NO. 7 RIXON ST
NO. 11 RIXON ST
NO. 53STRICKLAND ST
NO. 51STRICKLAND ST
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
CARPORT BELOWAWNING BELOWCARPORT BELOW
ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW
BELOWAWNING
NO WIN
DO
WS
RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY
SHED2 0005 000
1 830
6 500
5 000
5 000
2 000
NO WIN
DO
WS
GULLY PIT
MANHOLE
BRICK RESIDENCETWO STOREY
BRICK RESIDENCETWO STOREY
RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY
SHED
2 000
5 000
2 000
2 0005 000
P. POLE
TEL. POLE
1 830
SHED
LOT 36 DP 35213
BALC
ONY
AW
NIN
G
BELO
W
AW
NIN
G
BELO
W
AW
NIN
G
BELO
W
R I
X O N S T R E E T
Level 1 unit 4&539280
Ceiling unit 4&542280
3000
3000
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y (a
t ve
rge)
METAL ROOF
FACE BRICK
GLASS BALUSTRADE
Ground floor unit 4&536280
Roof units 4-544120
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y (a
t ve
rge)
Ground unit 134630
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
METAL ROOF
FACE BRICK
FACE BRICK
METAL ROOF
Ceiling unit 338040
Ground unit 234970
Ground unit 335340
Roof units 1-340127
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SydneyShop 1 35 Buckingham St
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
17/12/2014 3:44:32 AM
1 : 100@ A3
STREET & REAR ELEVATIONS
SCALE 1 : 100
EAST ELEVATION (street)1
SCALE 1 : 100
WEST ELEVATION2
Ground unit 134630
FACE BRICK
METAL ROOFFACE BRICK FACE BRICKMETAL ROOF METAL ROOF
FACE BRICK
Ceiling unit 338040
Ground unit 234970
Ground unit 335340
Roof units 1-340127
Proposed RL 34651
Existing RL 34400
Existing RL 35200
Proposed RL 35190
Ground unit 134630
FACE BRICK
METAL ROOF
FACE BRICK
METAL ROOF
Ceiling unit 3
38040
Ground unit 234970
Ground unit 335340
Roof units 1-340127
Proposed RL 34356
Existing RL 34100Proposed RL 35240
Existing RL 35200
SydneyShop 1 35 Buckingham St
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
17/12/2014 3:44:35 AM
1 : 100@ A3
SCALE 1 : 100
NORTH ELEVATION1
UNITS 1-3 NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS
SCALE 1 : 100
SOUTH ELEVATION2
SydneyShop 1 35 Buckingham St
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
17/12/2014 12:38:41 PM
@ A3
PERSPECTIVE
SydneyShop 1 35 Buckingham St
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
17/12/2014 12:45:12 PM
@ A3
PERSPECTIVE
557
557
Attachment B
Ground Floor0
Level 12700
Level 25400
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
Ground Floor0
Level 12700
Level 25400
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission www.modedesign.com.au
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
9/12/2013 5:12:31 PM
1 : 100@ A3
ELEVATIONS
Ground Floor0
Level 12700
Level 25400
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
YS
ITE B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
Ground Floor99200
Level 1101900
Level 2104600
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission www.modedesign.com.au
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
9/12/2013 5:12:43 PM
1 : 100@ A3
ELEVATIONS
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission www.modedesign.com.au
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176
9/12/2013 5:12:44 PM
@ A3
PERSPECTIVE
5 500
7 000
DP 36202 LOT 27
DP 36202 LOT 24
DP 36202 LOT 38
SETBACK
SETBACK
STANDARD PROVIDED
DP 36202 LOT 36
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
Sydney
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
33.71
33.56
33.39
33.89
35.42
34.89
34.41
34.10
35.14
34.89
34.01
34.76
33.21
32.88
35.26
W
W W W
W
44.195
15.5
45
44.195
15.5
45
FIBRO RESIDENCESINGLE STOREY
SKYTUBE
SKYTUBE
34.10
34.89
FFL 34.23
34.23
34.23
34.23
34.23
34.23
FFL 34.28
34.23
RWT
RWT
RW
TR
WT
1:200 @ A3
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
FLOOR PLANS
1
1
687m†Site Area
104m†
Min 450m† 687m†
279m†
mid-winter3hrs 9am-3pm 70% of Dwellings:
Dwelling=140Min 35m† per 290m†
=101m†15% Site Area
v
2 Spaces
(or 2 Spaces)1.0 per 3 Bed0.5 per 2 Bed0.4 per 1 Bed
3 Bed 95m† 2 Bed 70m† 1 Bed 50m†
3 Bed 104m†1 Bed 58m†
LOT 37 on DP 36302
58m†
UNIT A (3 BED)
1 58m†
UNIT B (3 BED) 1 104m†
UNIT C (1 BED)
UNIT D (1 BED)
8 ISAAC ST
DD 501 REV 03
NET 324m†
DRAWING No:
SCALE:
DATE:
PROJECT No:
www.modedesign.com.au
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
Architect R P O’Brien Registration No 7176
S h o p 1 35 B u c k i n g h a m S t 13076SYD
8 ISAAC Street, Peakhurst NSW SEPT 2014
I S A A C S T R E E T
ACCOMMODATION SCHEDULE
UNIT AREANO.
TOTAL GFA
0.51FSR
350m†
AHSEPP STANDARDS
SITE AREA
LANDSCAPED AREA
DEEP SOIL ZONES
SOLAR ACCESS
PARKING
DWELLING SIZE
1 200
1 200
NO. 10 ISAAC ST
NO. 6 ISAAC ST
UNIT ABED1
BED1
1:12 DRIVEWAY
UNIT D
REQUIREMENTCOUNCIL’S CROSSOVER TO NEW DRIVEWAY
UNIT C
DETAILSDRAWINGS FOR REFER TO LANDSCAPE FFL 34.28
104M†3 BED
FFL 34.28UNIT B
104M†3 BED
SHED
FIBRO GARAGEMETAL SHED
P.O.S.
UNIT D
UNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT C
BED2
BED3
BED3
BED2
BALC.
BALC.
TO COMPLY WITH BCAFIRE RATING TO FLOOR
58M†1 BED
FFL 37.28
58M†1 BED
FFL 37.28
BED 1
BED 1FFL 37.28
FFL 37.28
SHED
FIBRO GARAGEMETAL SHED
BINS
LD’Y
LD’Y/WC
LD’Y/WC
LD’Y
BINS
STO
RE
CONC. PATH
CONC. PATH
LB
LB
CONC.
TERRACE
TERRACE
STO
RE
STO
RE
STO
RE
17 800
3 900 2 350 2 350
13 100
6 550
6 550
3 150
3 000
LIN
LIN
3 150
3 000
AWNING BELOW
AWNING BELOW
3 000
3 150
5 400 1 6002001 934 6 000GARAGE
3 200
3 373
6 550
7 773
16 400
3 400
7 700
4 400
5 3004 000 5 600
13 100
4 572
Attachment C
Ground Floor34.280
Level 137.280
Ceiling39.980
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y
SETBACK
1200
SETBACK
1200
2700
3000
TILE ROOF
WEATHERBOARD CLADDING
FACE BRICK
ALUM. SCREENS TOBIN STORE
LETTERBOXES
HT 42.495
DP DP
METAL BALUSTRADE WITH GLASS PANELS
1800 ALUMINIUMFENCE AND GATE
1200
2300
GA
RA
GE
1000
1100
2100
1100
1000
18.00°
TYPICAL ENTRY DOOR WITHOBSCURE GLASS PLUS SIDELIGHTWITH OBSCURE GLASS
I
Ground Floor34.280
Level 137.280
Ceiling39.980
SIT
E B
OU
ND
AR
Y SETBACK
5500
3000
2700
HT 42.495
ALUMINIUM PERGOLA WITHAWNING OVER ENTRY
BIN STORE
FACE BRICK
TILE ROOF
1000
1100
1000
1100
DP
DP
DPDP
1800mm HIGH COLORBOND FENCEON BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED
COLORBOND FENCE
1100
1000
600
1500
600
1800
600
1500 21
00
ALUMINIUM SUN SHADE
STORAGE ACCESS
NOTES:
-
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555
E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176 REVISION No:
5/09/2014 10:28:01 AM
1 : 100@ A3
ELEVATIONS
SCALE 1 : 100
North Elevation
SCALE 1 : 100
West Elevation
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:DATE:SCALE:DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176 REVISION No:
8/09/2014 5:38:25 PM
@ A3
PERSPECTIVE
Sydney
These designs and plans are the copyright of Mode Design Corp. Pty Ltd and cannot be reproduced without written permission
PROJECT No:DATE:SCALE:DRAWING No:
Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Darwin Perth Sunshine Coast Gold Coast Auckland
www.modedesign.com.au
Shop 1 35 Buckingham StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010
Tel +61 2 8396 9500 Fax +61 2 8396 9555E-mail sydney@modedesign.com.au
Architect R P O'Brien Registration No. 7176 REVISION No:
8/09/2014 5:38:49 PM
@ A3
PERSPECTIVE
top related