ansr.net.au housing... · web vieweaves are specifically excluded in the side & rear clauses...

10 August 2016

Ms Elizabeth KinkadeExecutive DirectorPlanning Policy

by email: [email protected]

RE: Comments on draft Simplified Housing Code By Michelle WalkerDirector & Principal of Michelle Walker Architects Pty Ltd (MWa)A+ Member Australian Institute of Architects NSW Board of Architects Registration No 6350

I am the director and principal architect of a small architectural practice on Sydney’s northern beaches, specialising in residential work (Michelle Walker Architects Pty Ltd (MWa).

In the last year 10 years of practice, the vast majority of my work as a Sydney suburban architect is alterations & additions – upgrading the quality of housing in our city and suburbs, one project at a time.

Since 2008 and the introduction of the 2008 General Housing Code, MWa have completed 13 projects via the Complying Development Certificate (CDC) process, in a variety of council areas including Wollongong, Mosman, Manly, Warringah (the latter 2 now northern beaches council) and Ku ring gai Council areas. Of thirteen CDCs completed, twelve were for alteration & additions to existing dwellings.

We have had great success with the 2008 General Housing Codes and the CDC approval process as an alternative to the traditional Council Development Approval (DA) process. The CDC approval process saves us and our clients of six to nine months of time and $12,000 - $20,000 dollars in consultants fees & levies - a substantial and tangible benefit to residents and all the businesses which contribute to the housing building industry in NSW.

I am an advocate of the 2008 General Housing Code and the objectives to streamline residential approvals, including the aims expressed in the June 2016 Explanation of Intended Effects of the New Housing Code (pg 4 – faster & cheaper approvals, reducing red tape, facilitating economic growth and delivering more housing, target of 90% of housing approvals determined within 40 days by 2019).

However, in the past two years, our experience with the CDC approval process has become increasingly frustrating.

Michelle Walker architects pty ltd RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | OUTDOOR SPACES abn 15 146 642 622

mob 0422 393 600 email [email protected] board of arch nominated architect reg no 6530

1

The local certifiers in our area have changed their interpretation of the development codes, presumably based on project experience, advice from the Building Professionals Board and court actions / fines being imposed on their members, and the inherent ambiguity and contradictions within the Codes and associated legislation (ie: differences in definitions between the SEPP 2008 General Housing Code, the Standard Instrument SEPP, the SEPP for Affordable Housing (for Secondary Dwellings) aka the “Granny Flat Code”. Refer to the attached Recent Experiences with 2008 General Housing Codes.

This added uncertainty and increased risk to the process.

At two talks I have given in the past month to the Australian Institute of Architects local professional networks (Northern Beaches Architects Network in Dee Why and the Architects’ Network Southern Region at Kogarah) about the existing 2008 Codes and the draft Simplified Housing Code, architects are reporting instances where local certifiers are resisting or refusing to do CDCs for residential work, on their basis that their inherent professional risks are too high.

So I welcome the revision of the 2008 General Housing Code, as improvements to the clarity of the development controls will provide greater planning certainty, where the development rules are understood by all involved in the process and compliance can be achieved in a straightforward way.

In my experience, the single most significant issue leading to difficulties in the Codes being applied and implemented on a project by project basis is the lack of clarity around an existing dwelling and it’s site, where alterations and additions are proposed.

Clarity around the development codes for alterations and additions must be a priority, if the vast majority of residential work in NSW are improvements to our aging housing stock and the NSW governments stated approvals targets are to be met.

In nearly every case of alterations and additions, an existing dwelling has been approved via the DA process and stood on its site for generally – in our area of Sydney, between 30 and 80 years.

I recommend the draft Simplified Housing Code Division 3 Alterations & Additions is based on the fundamental principle that development standards apply to new works only, not the existing site and dwelling.

This basic assumption, and its clarification in the wording of the Codes, would be a significant contribution to the draft Simplified Housing Code, and result in a significant proportion of future residential approvals throughout NSW being dealt with via the CDC process, consistent with the intentions and purpose of the Code.

This fundamental principle regarding existing and new works is consistent with the current legislation when applying for a Development Application for alterations and additions to



2

Council. It is the new works which are the subject of the development application, not the existing works, building or site conditions. For example, councils do not require an existing house which exceeds the height control to remove part of the existing roof, as the trigger for eligibility for lodge a DA ground floor rear additions.

Refer to the attached Recent Experiences with 2008 General Housing Codes for further case studies where the lack of clarity of existing vs new works for alterations & additions has been problematic, where instances of a minor nature, such as a roof eave over an existing 80 year old front porch or works to an existing 40 year old upper floor deck, have been the basis for an application being deemed not suitable for a CDC approval.

I have reviewed the draft Simplified Housing Code and its associated explanatory documents, including the diagram of the new structure (three development types (New Dwellings, Alterations & Additions and Attached Development and Detached Development) (four lots types: standard, corner, parallel and battle-axe) (primary, secondary and tertiary standards).

This structure clearly provides for Alterations & Additions, with dedicated development controls for this category of residential building work.

After reading the codes in detail, a summary of my conclusions are set out in the following 5 points.

(Refer also to Detailed Comments on the draft simplified Housing Code included as an attachment.)

1 The draft simplified Housing Code does not tailor any development controls specifically for Alterations & Additions.

There is substantially no difference between the controls in Division 2: New Dwelling Houses and Attached Ancillary Development and Division 3: Alterations and Additions to Dwelling Houses and Attached Ancillary Development.

Both Divisions are 33 pages long each, with no difference in the controls, other than the following:

six editing differences where “including Alterations and Additions” has been inserted into the Alterations & Additions codes,

and

one difference between the two codes relating to height:

“3.18 Maximum Building Height for alterations and additions:



3

Note 3: the maximum building height only applies to parts of the building where complying development is proposed under this Part. Existing parts of the building that exceed 8.5m in height but will not be affected by the complying development are not required to meet the height requirements”

2 The development controls for Alterations & Additions are worded such that the “the dwelling house and all attached ancillary development, including alterations or additions, must…” comply with all the development controls in the codes (with the exception of maximum height) to be eligible for CDC approval.

ie: 3.20 “the maximum gross floor area that must be provided for development on a lot, including alterations or additions under this Division, is shown…”

ie: 3.20 “the minimum landscaped area that must be provided for development on a lot, including alterations or additions under this Division, is shown…”

and so on, for front setbacks, side setbacks, built to boundary setbacks, for all lot types, and 3.27 (3) total floor area of all attached side and rear balconies etc, with the exception of 3.18 Maximum Height Note 3 as mentioned above .

The wording in the draft Simplified Housing Code will have the effect of making nearly every future renovation project in the NSW require a DA.

I recommend the draft Simplified Housing Code Division 3 Alterations & Additions is based on the fundamental principle that development standards apply to new works only, not the existing site and dwelling.

In an instance where the existing dwelling or site does not comply with a development standard, the new works must comply and not increase the non-compliance of a standard.

ie: if an existing dwelling exceeds the gross floor area as set out in the maximum floor area control, than renovations to the home under complying development can proceed as long as the floor area is not increased. Similar to “3.18 Maximum Building Height for alterations and additions Note 3: the maximum building height only applies to parts of the building where complying development is proposed under this Part”.

The same could apply for minimum landscape area, setbacks, height and area of upper floor balconies etc.

3 The existing 2008 General Housing Code has several clauses which provide exceptions to the development controls - for landscape area and side & rear setbacks. These been removed from the simplified new Housing Code.



4

ie: 2008 General Housing Code 3.24 (6) Landscape Area: subclauses (1) - (5) do not apply to development referred to in clause 3.3 if the development does not (a) increase the existing site cover of the lot or(b) decrease the existing landscape area

ie: 2008 General Housing Code 3.19 Exceptions to Setbacks (b): side and rear setback and setbacks from the boundary with a road do not apply to the existing parts of a dwelling house or ancillary development where it is proposed to carry out any of the following:

(i) alterations and additions to an exiting dwelling house(ii) alterations and additions to existing ancillary development

These clauses and their effects should be maintained in the new codes, for the reasons as outlined in point 2.

4 The draft Simplified Housing Code has not tailored development controls specific to lot types.

The development controls in the Simplified Housing Code for each lot type are identical, with the single exception of setback controls for corner lots relating to primary and secondary frontages.

The benefits of the a Simplified Housing Code as stated by the Dept of Planning & Environment include a clear, easy to use document for homeowners, industry and councils. Perhaps this worthy aim has lead to the new structure, where all development controls for each type and lot are in one Division, for ease of reading.

However, given there is no difference between the development controls, the proposed structure is merely a word processing formatting change, rather than any effective tailored development controls for each lot type.

The effect of this draft structure is to repeat clause after clause to generate 66 pages for Division 2 & 3, with only minor differences. As written, one set of codes for New Homes including Alterations and Additions, with added clauses to note differentiated setbacks for corner blocks and the height control Note 3 - would have the same legislative effect.

Unless the development codes are tailored to suit types and lots, the new structure is irrelevant and unnecessarily long.

5 The draft Simplified New Housing Code diagrams have not been tailored to illustrate controls specific to development types or lot types



5

For the first time, diagrams illustrating how development controls have been included in the draft legislation. This is a positive addition to the legislation, as it can aid interpretation and demonstrate compliance of the controls.

However, the diagrams included in the draft Simplified New Housing Code are identical throughout Division 2 New Dwellings and Division 3 Alterations & Additions, and within these Divisions, identical throughout the four lot types (standard, corner, parallel road, battle axe).

They do not relate to the respective development type nor respective lot types. The diagrams do not illustrate the controls they refer to and do not make sense.

ie: Division 3 Alterations & Additions, pg 46 Example for Clause 3.21 (1)-(3) Minimum Setbacks for Standard Lots for all Developments is the same diagram for pg 52 Example for Clause 3.22 (2)-(4) Minimum Setbacks for Corner Lots for all Developments, and so forth and so on throughout.

In support of this submission, please find the following two more detailed comments:

1 RECENT EXPERIENCES WITH EXISTING 2008 GENERAL HOUSING CODE as background for issues with the existing definitions / interpretations

2 DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT SIMPLFIED NEW HOUSING CODE: Division 3 Alterations & Additions (and corresponding comments to other divisions)

I welcome the opportunity discuss the issues I have raised if this input was sought. I look forward to the continued improvements to this important piece of legislation which governs the day to day activities of my professional work.

Yours sincerely

Michelle WalkerDirector & Principal of Michelle Walker Architects Pty Ltd (MWa)A+ Member Australian Institute of Architects NSW Board of Architects Registration No 635067A Wanganella StreetBALGOWLAH NSW 2093M 0422 393 [email protected] RECENT EXPERIENCES WITH EXISTING 2008 GENERAL HOUSING CODE

By way of background to this submission, MWa have undertaken projects with the following planning circumstances, which is testament to the flexibility and potential uses of the codes:



6

bush fire area (BAL 29) (Warringah)

heritage conservation area where the works have been minor in nature and permitted within the Part 4 Internal & External Alterations – in conjunction with LEP Clause 4.6 Heritage Exemptions for Repair and Maintenance Works– where we have sought local council (Mosman ) approval for external painting, roof repairs & new front door/porch a part of the renovation works prior to getting the CDC for the renovations to the rear of the property

secondary dwelling under SEPP for Affordable Housing using CDC process for conversion of part of a 2 storey home (upper floor) into a granny flat / studio apartment

(which I also note has the effect of changing the National Construction Code building classification from Class 1 single dwelling to Class 2 multiple occupancy – requiring retrofitting of the existing dwelling to meet apartment standard fire and acoustic rating, an almost impossible tack to achieve)

dual approvals with both DA and CDC being lodged for the same site – the DA for a significant renovation and CDC for the car parking (new double carport on the front/side boundary – which cannot be approved via CDC)

However, in the past two years, our experience with the CDC approval process has become increasingly frustrating.

The local certifiers in our area have changed their interpretation of the development codes, which has added uncertainty to the process.

When we look back at approvals which we received a few years ago, we are of the opinion they would not be approved today by the same certifiers.

When we look at the original Housing Code Guide by the Dept of Planning with associated descriptions and diagrams, the current interpretations, the wording of the definitions in the legislation and indeed, the Dept of Planning correspondence to us – are contradictory.

We have also sought planning advice on the Codes early on in projects from a number of certifiers, on specific issues relating to a specific project with a particular site condition – only to receive different opinions / interpretations; a case of ask a different certifier, get a different answer.

We have also sought the opinion of a local town planners and note that several clients have also received professional planning assessments from town planners, on how the Codes apply to their existing dwelling. This advice is also often conflicting.

Given the CDC application is submitted at the end of significant documentation (architectural, stormwater, engineering and other various required application for Sydney Water, driveway crossovers to Council etc), the benefits of the CDC process are negated if the implementation lacks clarity & certainty.

The worst outcome is for me, as an architect guiding clients along the design / approval process towards construction, is to be faced with a Certifer’s subjective interpretation at the last minute when prompt approval is anticipated. This is an increased professional risk and on one recent occasion, has incurred redesign, delays and additional costs.

During protracted negotiations with certifiers, we have on several occasions resorted to seeking clarification from the Dept of Planning & Environment on interpretation of definitions (“site cover” and “front building line”), as have the certifiers involved in the approval – a process which surely cannot be the intention of the planning codes.



7

Seeking adjudication from a state planning body over a front setback and eave overhang for a suburban alteration & addition in Sydney is a waste of professional resources, far outweighing the risk of any environmental effect which may result in a 450mm eave overhang. It is a symptom of an ambiguous planning code.

The following are six recent examples of difficulties with recent definitions / interpretations with the existing codes.

The benefit of summarising these issues with the existing code is that they are relevant is so far as the new codes must be clear so that meaning is explicit.

In my experiences, the single most significant issue leading to difficulties in the Codes being applied is the lack of clarity around an existing dwelling and its site, where alterations and additions are proposed.

I note that if the target of 90% of housing approvals are to be approved in under 40 days by 2019, then surely the vast majority of these approvals will be alteration & additions to existing dwellings, upgrading our existing housing stock in Sydney? (all of which have already been approved via the existing DA process which has been in place for decades).

In the last year 10 years of my own practice, the vast majority of my work as a Sydney suburban architect is alterations & additions.

Improving the intention and clarity of the development controls for alterations and additions is a priority.

Recently some certifiers have advised for an alteration & addition to be eligible for a CDC, an existing dwelling & site must meet all development controls – except the landscape controls and setbacks, where there are specific exemption.

This is in contrast with earlier approaches by certifiers who advised that only “new works” have to comply - a fundamental difference of interpretation and has a huge impact on the viability of almost every alteration & addition project.

Six examples below:

1 EXISTING SITE COVER: an upper floor addition (a fairly typical example of a suburban alteration & addition) where:

existing house was built in 1940s, renovated in the 1980s via DA from council including a pool & deck & carport

no work is proposed to the existing site (ie no change required to existing driveway, carparking, site cover or landscape)

no change to the extent of existing ground floor of the dwelling other than the addition of an internal staircase to link to the new upper floor

new works comply with development controls including height, side, front & rear setbacks, floor space, stories, no upper floor balconies etc

Certifier’s interpretation: the site has to meet the site cover controls to be eligible for CDC.

Rationale: there is no exemption for existing site cover control as there is for existing landscape control 3.24 (6), therefore this is a case of an inferred definition or definition by omission.



8

2 DEFINITION OF SITE COVER: inconsistencies

currently site cover is not defined in the SEPP Exempt and Complying and Dept of Planning defers to the standard definition in LEP

SEPP 3.9 Site Cover development Controls of SEPP requires the site coverage of dwelling houses and all ancillary development to be measured and ancillary development Cl 1.5 includes awnings, balconies, decks, basements, driveways and pathways and eaves

this is inconsistent with the explicit standard instrument - which specifically excludes eaves, unenclosed balconies etc….as does the SEPP Affordable Housing (2ndary dwelling code)

local certifiers are accepting the method of subtracting areas of site cover which fall under exempt development ie: Exempt paving, Exempt = 25sqm carport, 20sqm driveway and hard stand spaces, driveway/hard stand spaces / pathways & paving = not exceeding 15% of site area or 150sqm whichever is the lessor…

3 EXISTING UPPER FLOOR BALCONIES: an existing two storey home, to be renovated and extended on the ground and upper floor where:

existing house was built in 1920s and 2nd storey added in the 1980s via DA including three upper floor balconies which combined area is in excess of 12sqm

new works include renovation of entire home including extension to upper floor, with no changes to two of the balconies and a reduction in the 3rd balcony to make way for a building addition, new works comply with all development controls

Certifier’s interpretation: works must include the removal of the existing upper floor balconies otherwise the site & dwelling cannot be approved via CDC – albeit the house has been through a previous DA process and the balconies have been in existence for 30 years

4 EXISTING DECK: an existing two storey dwelling on a steep site, where the dwelling is one storey to the street, two storeys to the rear where the topography falls away, the main living space is on the street level which becomes the upper floor at the rear of the house

existing house built in 1930s, extended in the 1980s to the rear of the main upper level including a large deck, and lower ground floor converted to a bedroom, approved via DA from council

proposal is to extend upper floor rear living area by 1m across the back of the house, by extending into the existing deck by 1m and replacing this part of the deck with an extension, no change to the remaining footprint of the deck in plan – height, side and rear setbacks to remain as existing

new addition works comply with height, setbacks, floor area etc

Certifier’s interpretation: because the existing deck does not meet the deck controls (over 2m high above natural ground level, not setback more than 3m etc) the extension to the house can be approved via CDC but the cutting away of the existing deck has to go to Council for a DA – for an approval to alter an existing deck with an existing DA approval, which has been built for 30 years, to reduce its size).

In this instance, eventually the certifier conceded that if the structural engineer could demonstrate that the existing deck was structurally independent from the original house, that the extension could be built without dismantling the original deck (but cutting away the standing structure) than the works could be approved via CDC (despite the fact that the deck could be re-decked and balustrade replaced without any approvals these



9

works would be maintenance). This was a contorted subjective rationale, the result of the code not provide clarity on the issue of how they relate to existing structures.

5 DEFINITION AND ESTABLISHING FRONT BUILDING LINE / FRONT SETBACK:

front building line definition interpretation has changed from my previous understanding of “wall” = front building line, to now include “roof overhang / roof edge / eaves”

The original Dept of Planning guideline to the NSW Housing Code used to say the following were exempt: existing parts of a dwelling, allowable encroachments permitted in 3.7.1.7 of Vol 2 BCA (ie eaves) and eaves not projecting over 450mm

Current Dept of Planning guidance provided to MWa in May and confirmed via email to the involved certifier assessing the CDC: changed definition, as roof overhangs/eaves are:

- not included in definition of articulation elements 3.22 allowed within articulation zone

- not specifically mentioned as exclusions to setbacks

- an eave is included in the definition of a “dwelling house” so therefore has to be behind the front building line

- establishing front building line from adjacent neighbouring properties has to be from roof line/eave to roof line/eave, not wall to wall - again a case of an inferred definition or definition by omission

the diagrams contained within the existing guideline documents do not indicate a dotted line for eaves, as they do for other diagrams including gross floor area. This simple graphic inclusion on the setback diagrams and also the inclusion of eaves into the definition of articulation zone, would clarify this issue

I also note the current Manly LEP definition of building line includes reference to a roof edge - ie: building line means the line of an existing or proposed external wall or roof edge of a building (other than a wall or roof of any building element within an articulation zone), or the outside face of any existing or proposed ancillary development, closest to a boundary of a lot”. This is the first time I have noted roof edge included in a definition relating to building line, so further clarification or consistency is required.

6 DEFINITION OF STOREY AND BASEMENTS: an existing two storey home, to be renovated and extended on the ground, where there is an existing sub floor area as a resultant of the sloped topography of the house to the rear of the dwelling

the sub floor area has a ceiling height of 1.9m

it is not a habitable or a non-habitable room as defined by the National Construction Code as it does not meet 3.8.2 Room Heights (minimum ceiling height of 2.1m a non habitable room or utility spaces such hallway, laundry or wet areas etc).

it is not a basement (and therefore to be counted as a storey) as it does not meet the definition of a basement under the CDC (as per the standard instrument LEP, “basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1metre above ground level (existing)”



10

despite this, the certifier considers this sub floor area a storey, even though it cannot meet the definition of habitable space under the NCC, or a basement as defined by Standard Instrument, on the basis that it has a “formed floor”, not a dirt floor, and is likely to be used in some way

therefore any renovation to the home cannot be applied for via CDC as the existing home is part three storeys

There are many sub floor areas with almost head height space across existing homes in NSW, many of which are used for storage, car parking, gym rooms, cellars etc. The existence of these spaces and the lack of definition for them is leading to existing two storey dwellings being ineligible for renovation works via CDC - even if the new works are to the other parts of house, on the basis that the home is 3 storeys.



11

2 DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT SIMPLFIED NEW HOUSING CODE: Division 3 Alterations & Additions

The following are my detailed comments on Division 3: Alterations & Additions code, and as these codes are identical in wording & diagrams to the Division 2 New House and Division 4 Detached Development.

Many of the comments made will apply to the corresponding clauses in the Division 2.

3.19 Gross Floor Area does not state that if an existing dwelling has an excess of permitted floor area, that alterations & additions can still be undertaken as long as the proposal does not increase the existing gross floor area.

Is it the intention that if an existing dwelling is over the maximum floor area, than no works can be undertaken, even if the floor area is not increased?

What is the risk of a renovation to an existing home and ancillary development, previously approved via DA, where the floor area is not increased and any new works meet the Codes?

The above approach would permit most renovations, reconfiguration of layouts, the opening up of the back of a house, the addition of a deck, new pool, alterations to carparking, opening up of enclosed verandas etc – a host of complying works, where floor area is not increased.

Also note - many Councils do not have floor space ratio controls such as Warringah Council’s LEP, and most Council’s LEP definition of floor area excludes carparking. So the circumstance is common that an existing house will exceed the Code’s gross floor area.

The diagram Example for Clause 3.19 (1) to explain Gross Floor Area (GF) needs to include examples other common dwelling elements, to aid clarity of inclusion or exclusion in the gross floor area calculations ie:

a deck at the rear of the property attached to the rear of the house (attached on one side) with a pergola (ie covered but not enclosed) - excluded

a front entry porch (covered, with a wall on two sides which are the front walls of the home) (assumed that this is not enclosed) - excluded

an attached paved and veranda - not covered but enclosed - excluded

an enclosed veranda - covered and enclosed - included

also noted here that this diagram contains the dotted line of an eave over, and this is important as it illustrates the status of eaves in relation to GFA, which is omitted in other clauses and diagrams

(As an aside, what is the definition of a studio vs a secondary dwelling? This may not be considered within the topic of the Codes but is much discussed with other architects / planners and certifiers – between the National Construction Code, SEPP for Affordable Housing and NSW General Housing Code, and the VERY common request by prospective clients for a studio/granny flat…what is the trigger? The installation of a kitchen, a sink, a laundry, a toilet? Can a studio have a bathroom in it before becoming a granny flat?)

3.20 Minimum Landscaped Area

The existing code has CL3.24 with an exemption for existing landscape area, which has been deleted in the New Code. Please re-instating this exemption, for reasons contained in the above submission.

The example diagram for 3.20(1) and (3):Michelle Walker architects pty ltd RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE |

INTERIORS | OUTDOOR SPACES abn 15 146 642 622 mob 0422 393 600 email [email protected]

NSW board of arch nominated architect reg no 6530

12

graphic diagram relating to the LANDSCAPE AREA includes a notation of the front building line - with a dotted eave over the building footprint in front of the front building line. Refer to Recent Experiences: 5 DEFINITION AND ESTABLISHING FRONT BUILDING LINE / FRONT SETBACK. Dept of Planning correspondence to us directly contradicted this diagram. Please remove such contradictions and provide clarity – one way or another.

the front building line graphic should be removed from this LANDSCAPE AREA diagram as its inconsistent with Example 3.21 (1) - (3)

the extent of hatched minimum landscaped area should not include the side passages of a home, as is most cases throughout Sydney, this side passage is 0.9m wide and is unlikely to be 1.5m wide, as required for inclusion in landscaped area

The wording of the requirement for landscaped area in the front setback is still ambiguous – the wording implies one thing (that 25% of your landscaped area must be in the front setback) but the diagram & caption implies another (that 25% of the area forward of the building line must be landscaped area).

SETBACKS FOR STANDARD LOTS

3.21 Minimum Setbacks for Standard Lots for all Developments

The current exceptions Clause 3.19(b) of current 2008 General Housing Code for existing parts of a dwelling house to remain within the front, side and rear setbacks has been removed.

“2008 General Housing Code 3.19 Exceptions to Setbacks (b): side and rear setback and setbacks from the boundary with a road do not apply to the existing parts of a dwelling house or ancillary development where it is proposed to carry out any of the following…”

The removal of this clause and the wording of the current draft has the effect that if the existing house doesn’t comply with setback requirements, works cannot be approved via CDC, even if the new works, the alterations and additions comply.

As previously stated, what is the environmental, planning or amenity risk of a renovation to a property where there is “no change to existing” in relation to the setbacks to an existing house, which was previously approved via DA?

Clarify the issue of roof eaves encroaching into the front building setback – as the definition of “dwelling house” and “ancillary development” does not include eaves – and the definition of “building elements in the articulation zone” does not include roof eaves, therefore, by definition, the front setback has to be from edge of roof eave, not wall. Eaves are not shown dotted on this diagram either, where as they are on 3.20(1). Generally, all roofs overhang walls to provide an eave – its standard construction practice. Eaves are specifically excluded in the side & rear clauses – 3.25 (2) and diagrams 3.2.1 (4) side setbacks.

The example diagram for 3.21 (1) - (3)

graphic diagram relating to the LANDSCAPE AREA includes a notation of the front building line - with a dotted eave over the building footprint in front of the front building line. Refer to Recent Experiences: 5 DEFINITION AND ESTABLISHING FRONT BUILDING LINE / FRONT SETBACK. Dept of Planning correspondence to us directly contradicted this diagram. Please remove such contradictions and provide clarity – one way or another.

the front building line graphics include a dotted eave over the building footprint and its relation to the front building line



13

3.21 (6) can this wall have a strip skylight above it, within the 900mm of a boundary?

SETBACKS FOR CORNER LOTS

3.22 Minimum Setbacks for Corner Lots of all Developments

(1) The primary road for a corner lot is the road that the dwelling faces provided the road has a least a 6m boundary with the lot

The definition of which way the dwelling “faces” is ambiguous.

Corners lots, by their special configuration, have many possible interpretations of which way they face, including:

street address of the property vehicular access point for the property location of an entry gate for pedestrian access (many corner sites have a separate pedestrian

access on one side and a driveway on another side, which does not necessarily correlate with the street address of the property)

direction the front door faces direction of the front porch stairs lead to, if front door is recessed and perpendicular to the street the direction of the longest length of the dwelling (which may or may not relate to the entry of the

home) the established front and side setback of the home - as many corner lots have a house sited towards

the rear/side, with no rear yard but large front and side yards to the street

Please clarify.

Example for Clause 3.22 (2) - (4) - this diagram is for 3 standard lots, yet it refers to the clauses for CORNER LOTS. This does not make sense and this continues throughout this Division

ie: Example for Clause 3.22 (6) and 3.22 (7) and 3.22 (9) - (11) and 3.22 (12) the same as the diagrams Standard Lots and does not relate to the corner lot setbacks. Ditto for all the diagrams included in Parallel Lots and Battle Axe Blocks. Ditto for all the diagrams in Division 2, in the corresponding sections of the draft.

Example for Clause 3.22 (5) indicated a dotted line for primary frontage established over four lots.

The dotted straight line noted PRIMARY FRONTAGE connecting the front alignment is not the same as the mathematical average of the primary road setback of the nearest 2 dwelling houses on the same side of the road, as included in the written clauses.

Note: (2) does not mention 40m but (3) does

When a house frontage and front boundary are not parallel then will the corner of the house be OK for establishing the primary frontage setback?

What is the intended correct method of establishing the front building line?

3.22 (7) Built to Boundary Setbacks - why and what purpose of within 150mm? Example for 3.22 (7) does not illustrate the 150mm dimension.

SETBACKS FOR PARALLEL ROAD LOTSMichelle Walker architects pty ltd RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE |

INTERIORS | OUTDOOR SPACES abn 15 146 642 622 mob 0422 393 600 email [email protected]

NSW board of arch nominated architect reg no 6530

14

In my 25 years of working as an architect in Sydney, I have never come across a parallel road lot. There is a diagram of this lot type on p7 3.3A Determining Lot Type.

Why structure the CDC codes around such a rare lot type?Comments per standards and diagrams for this section apply as per comments for standard and corner blocks.

SETBACKS FOR BATTLE AXE BLOCKS

(1) General - A battle - axe lot is taken to have three side boundaries and a rear boundary. The rear boundary is opposite to the boundary to which the front of the dwelling house faces.

The definition of which way the dwelling “faces” is ambiguous, similar to previous comments for 3.22 Corner lots.

The ambiguity is compounded by the fact that there are no diagrams for front setbacks nor diagrams of side or rear boundaries which relate to battle-axe lots - their geometry and configuration.

The diagram of a battle-axe block type on p7 3.3A Determining Lot Type has a battle-axe block with 6 edges.

A battle-axe diagram is required to nominate which edges are the 3 sides and 1 rear, and what are the classifications of the 2 edges and what setbacks apply? Also how does the issue of entry relate to the issue of “front” and facing”, as per corner block circumstances?

3.25 Exceptions to Setbacks – include sunshades in the list

3.26 Secondary development standards for alterations and additions (3): refer notes on “eaves” – please clarify

3.27 Attached Balconies etc…The confusing wording about the maximum size of balconies remains. Is it 12 sqm total area for all (ie: each and every) balconies or is it 12 sqm total area for all of the balconies combined?

As per previous comments & examples, what about existing balconies which do not comply? Can these remain, be more than 12sqm, be outside the setbacks, with only new works to comply?

3.28 Alts & Adds that are privacy…

The inclusion of translucent glass as an acceptable method of privacy is a great step forward. There is no direction about the operability of windows – ie sliders or louvres which are opaque – are these permissible?

As per previous comments & examples, what about existing windows?



15

ansr.net.au housing... · web vieweaves are specifically excluded in the side & rear clauses...

Documents