14 November 2014
Gail McGowan
Director General
Department of Planning
Locked Bag 2506
PERTH WA 6001
Dear Ms McGowan
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STATE PLANNING POLICY 3.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES
As previously noted in our response to your letter dated 29 May 2014 the Australian Institute of
Architects (WA Chapter) welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback and commentary in relation
to the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Codes 2013.
While we were are very keen to engage with this process and provided an initial response in
accordance with the nominated timeline, we again suggest there exists an opportunity and need to
address a wider dialogue on these issues together with a much greater degree of consultation with
the industry as a whole.
We understand the proposed changes to the R Codes are possibly in response to local government
and or community concern about the potential adverse impact of increasing pressure, either real or
perceived, resulting from the 2010 changes to the R Codes in terms of multi-residential development
in zoning R30 and R35. We believe the proposed changes outlined in your letter will not create
additional diversity and equally not serve to increase amenity, and are in fact at odds with the
recognised necessity to increase urban density and the efficient use of public transport within the
established urban fabric. Accordingly it is suggested there needs to be a clear understanding of the
difference between single and multi-residential developments, noting they represent very different
housing options for different people and serve very different needs within the community. By
creating greater opportunity for a variety of housing options with the urban fabric we have the
potential of also creating greater diversity within our communities
New Items from the Review Process
We note a number of new items have been included in the latest revised submission and make the
following comments and suggestions:
a) Item A Clause 5.3.5 C5.7 and 5.3.5 P5.2
a. While the reference to the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods – Street Layout, Design and Traffic
Management Guideline’ is seen as a positive with its reference to internal and external
connections however we suggest the inclusion of this requirement on development of
less than 10 green title, strata or survey lots is too onerous.
b. There is a concern in referencing a separate document that is subject to its own review
and changes it may not keep pace with the meaning and intent of the R Codes whilst
also creating a precedence for future confusion and ambiguity.
b) Item B Clause 6.1.4 C4.5
a. As noted in our earlier submission we suggested Clause C4.4 should be deleted.
b. The additional Clause C4.5 added as part of the review process also appears too
prescriptive whilst also not serving to remove the ambiguity of Clause C4.4.
c. It is also suggested the proposed change will not preserve the amenity of the lower
density code site and this is essentially determined by other elements such as open
space, setbacks, and the height of buildings typically addressed by other criteria within
the R Codes.
c) Item C Definition of a Garage
a. We suggest the wording of the new definition serves to only create scope for confusion
and ambiguity given its move away from a common usage definition.
b. It is suggested the clarification is best served by the revised definition of an Outbuilding
as proposed.
d) Item D Definition of a Multiple Dwelling
c. We suggest the wording of the new definition is too prescriptive and introduces a strict
minimum provision where previously this was possibly not intended in the original
wording, and which also allowed for more diverse solutions and outcomes.
d. Any considered change to the definition should in fact allow for the maximum flexibility
in relation to multiple dwellings provided the outcomes are in line with the other
requirements of the R Codes in terms of design quality and amenity.
Institute Response to the Proposed Amendments Item 1 to 4
The proposed changes to the R Codes would, it is suggested have the effect of virtually eliminating
the opportunity for multi-residential developments within R30 andR35 zones.
Accordingly we make the following comments and suggestions:
e) Item 1 Modify Table 1
e. We suggest the application of open space (i.e. minimum total % of site) requirements to
multiple dwellings under R10 to R35 is adopted together with a revised definition that
clarifies the inclusion of balcony area within the open space calculation.
f. We suggest that the imposition of ‘Minimum site area per dwelling (m2)’ be deleted, as
not appropriate for multi-residential developments.
The proposed change to the minimum site area will not create additional amenity as this
is again essentially determined by other elements such as open space, setbacks, and the
height of buildings typically addressed by other criteria within the R Codes.
g. We suggest Clause 5.1.1 Site Area C1.2 iii is also deleted for multi-residential
developments in line with our proposed change to the ‘‘Minimum site area per dwelling
(m2)’ requirement.
f) Item 2 Modify Table 4
a. We oppose the removal of R30 and R35 as potential multi-residential developments.
g) Item 3 Amend Clause 6.3.3 Parking C3.1
a. We suggest the visitor parking requirement for all multi-residential developments be
deleted or reduced with a performance criteria assessment in response to:
i. On street parking:
Historically, Perth has made poor use of on-street parking outside the CBD;
however, it is a perfectly legitimate use of road reserves to provide additional
verge parking, and the provision of on street parking for use by occasional visitors
generating high turnover (i.e. not employees or residents) assists in generating
street-level activity, creating vibrant urban spaces.
ii. Type, number and size of dwellings
Increasingly developments comprise a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom
dwellings with floor areas ranging between 30sqm and greater than 110sqm.
Page 2 of 6
b.
c.
d.
e.
Given the change of mix of the dwellings and the weighting to smaller one
bedroom dwellings within the market place it is suggested the current demand for
onsite visitor parking is decreasing in most multiple dwelling developments.
Anecdotal evidence suggest residents of more compact apartments also socialise
differently with a tendency to entertaining outside the dwelling instead relying on
café, restaurants and small bar opportunities.
In addition with a changing focus to smaller dwelling sizes there is merit in also
considering the provision of alternative transport (i.e. bike, scooter, motorcycle
etc.) parking bays in lieu of traditional car parking bays and or the option of small
dwellings not being provided with a parking bay.
iii. Public transport
We suggest the promoting of public transport, pedestrian and cycle transport
within the proposed developments should be further encouraged.
Alternative transport options such as car sharing, now operating in Melbourne,
Adelaide and Sydney, could also provide concessions if a development is located
within the vicinity of a car sharing bay or service provider similar to those offered
by a train or bus node.
We highlight there should be a clear distinction between multi-residential as opposed to
Townhouse design solutions, whilst also providing a higher concession for those
developments that promote public transport, pedestrian and cycle transport
alternatives.
We also suggest the number of Visitor car parking bays is restricted to a maximum
number for any multi-residential development.
Together with the additional provision of a single bike storage rack to be included within
each dwelling car parking bay as a standard calculation.
Accordingly we suggest modifying the Table and its provisions as follows:
Plot Ratio Area & Type of Multiple Dwelling
Car Parking Spaces
Location A
Location B
Small (i.e. <75sqm or 1 bedroom)
Medium (i.e. 75sqm to less than 110sqm, 1 or 2
bedroom)
Large (i.e. >110sqm , 3 or more bedroom)
Visitor Parking (i.e. per bedroom)
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.03
1.25
0.07
f.
We note a number of local governments have over ridden the R Code requirement for
visitor bays with many having a requirement for zero bays as a means of encouraging
the utilisation of public transport options.
h) Item 4 Attachment - Amend Definitions
a. Clause C2.4 Clarification
The altered Clause C2.4 should clarify that the projection of minor structure into setback
area may be in addition to the averaged area. We suggest the word ‘further’ should be
added to emphasise that the averaged building line may be reduced by an additional
1.0m as follows:
C2.4 A porch, balcony, veranda, chimney or the equivalent may also (subject to the
Building Code of Australia) project not more than 1.0m further into the street setback
area, provided that the total of such projections does not exceed 20 percent of the
frontage at any level. (i.e. Refer also to Figure 2b).
b. Clause C4.4 Wording
The Institute has repeatedly opposed the ‘with a boundary between them’ wording in
Clause C4.4. We suggested the current requirement practically does nothing but create
Page 3 of 6
additional paperwork as it is unrealistic to treat an integrated development as a series of
separate lots.
Accordingly we suggested this Clause should be deleted.
c. General Corrections and Revision
The remaining corrections and revisions proposed are welcome to further clarify and
correct the wording of the Codes.
Additional Items Highlighted by the Institute for Further Consideration
In addition we welcome the opportunity to highlight the following items not raised within your letter
but which the Institute would like to see as part of the ongoing dialogue to review and refine the
current R Codes:
A. Setback for Multi-residential Projects
a. Design Principles Part 6.1.4 Lot Boundary Setbacks Deemed to Comply Clause C4.1
current text:
i. identifies areas coded R30 to R60 should comply with the minimum lot
boundary setback requirements as set out in Table 2a and 2b; and
ii. areas coded R80 to R160 should comply with the minimum lot boundary
setback requirements as set out in Table 5
b. Suggested change would see the application of the same requirements for R30 to
R160 areas in accordance with a modified Table 5 providing an opportunity for lots
to achieve a zero side setback in the following circumstances:
i. within identified public transport nodes, and within close proximity of public
transport and other facilities;
ii. will not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential
property or the street; and
iii. positively contributes to the prevailing development context and
streetscape.
c. It is also suggested the ‘Table 5: Width of the Lot in Metres’ is adjusted to reflected
the following property dimensions:
Width of the lot in metres (m)
Side setback in metres (m)
≤14
0.0
28
3.0
≥30
4.0
d. We suggest there are advantages in provided a minimum plan depth to efficiently
utilise development sites together with the maximisation of circulation space and
the existing requirement of Table 5 often translate to single or shallow depth design
solution that are not always desirable.
B. Bicycle Parking Requirements for Multi-residential
a. Design Principles Part 6.3.3 Parking Deemed to Satisfy Clause C3.2 current text
identifies in addition one bicycle space to each three dwellings for residence and
one bicycle space to each ten dwellings for visitors.
b. We suggest an additional concession is provided in relation to car parking
requirements for developments that exceed the minimum requirements when
required by local government to provide alternative transport (i.e. bike, scooter,
motorcycle etc.) parking bays.
C. Impact of Floor to Floor Height (i.e. 3.1m in lieu of 3.0m) and Maximum Building Height
a. Table 4 General site requirements for multiple dwellings in areas coded R30 or
greater, within mixed use development and/or activity centres the impact of local
Page 4 of 6
D.
E.
F.
G.
government Setback on R Codes identifies maximum heights typically based on an
average floor to floor height of 3.0m.
b. We suggest the adoption of a minimum 3.1m floor to floor height and an increase in
the ‘Maximum Height ‘provisions within Column 5 accordingly to multiples of 3.1m
in accordance with current industry standards and provision of appropriate multiple
dwelling amenities.
Definition of Balcony/ Open Space
a. Design Principles Part 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas current text defines P1.1 Outdoor
Living Area which provides spaces:
i. Capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling
ii. Open to winter sun and ventilation; and
iii. Optimises use of northern aspect of the site
b. Design Principles Part 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas current text defines P1.2 Balconies
capable of use with habitable room of each dwelling and if possible open to winter
sun.
c. We suggest the inclusion of all balconies and terraces in multi-residential
developments as open space provided they are:
i. deeper than 1.5m; and
ii. as a minimum open on one side only.
Enclosed Lockable Storage Area
a. Design Principles Part 5.5.5 Utilities & Facilities Deemed to Comply Clause C5.1
current text identifies an ‘external location of the storeroom’ and ‘accessible from
outside the dwelling’.
b. We suggest the inclusion of a store within the dwelling whilst still complying with
the minimum dimension requirements.
c. The area provision of up to a maximum of 4.0sqm would be excluded from the Plot
Ratio Calculation on this basis.
Solar Access for Adjoining Sites
a. Design Principles Part 5.4.2 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites C2.1 current text
identifies the shadow cast by a proposed development should not exceed:
i.
on adjoining properties coded R25 and lower – 25 percent of the site area
ii.
on adjoining properties coded R30 to R40 inclusive – 35 percent of the site
area
iii.
on adjoining properties coded higher than R40 – 50 percent of the site
area
b. We suggest an increase in the percentage for R30 and higher properties of 5 to 10%
respectively provided it does not have adverse impact on the amenity of the
adjoining property with appropriate consideration for the extent over covered roofs
only.
Dwelling Size and Maximum Size
a. Design Principles Part 6.4.3 Dwelling Size Deemed to Comply Clause C3.2 current
text identifies no development with a ‘dwelling smaller than 40sqm plot ratio’ will
comply.
b. We suggest the deletion of the minimum 40sqm requirement and the provision of
compact smaller one bedroom and or studio dwellings of 30sqm plot ratio in
response to increase demand for diversity and affordability housing options.
Page 5 of 6
H. Dwelling Size and Mix
a. Design Principles Part 6.4.3 Dwelling Size Deemed to Comply Clause C3.1 current
text identifies developments shall contain a minimum of 20% 1 bedroom, up to a
maximum of 50%; and 40% 2 bedrooms.
b. We suggest a change to nominated mix based on minimum of 15% for both 1
bedroom and 2 bedrooms with no maximum percentage.
c. A performance based assessment should also be considered for locations in close
proximity to alternative transport or public transport nodes in response to increase
demand for diversity and affordable housing options.
I. Enclosed Lockable Storage Area
a. Design Principles Part 5.5.5 Utilities & Facilities Deemed to Comply Clause C5.1
current text identifies an ‘external location of the storeroom’ and ‘accessible from
outside the dwelling’.
b. We suggest the deletion of the requirement for an external store and instead
advocate the inclusion of a store within the dwelling whilst still complying with the
minimum dimension requirements.
c. The area provision of up to a maximum of 4.0sqm would be excluded from the Plot
Ratio Calculation on this basis.
As previously suggested, we see merit in taking your letter as a catalyst for an ongoing and more
interactive dialogue between Government, Industry and the Institute to promote the role of good
design with our communities. This would potentially not be limited to issues relating to the R Codes
but could also include review of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of
Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65), the Planning and Development (Development Assessment
Panels) Regulations 2010 and Emergency Services Act as intrinsic influences on how we collectively
create built form and urban spaces. The Institute Members, as daily practitioners within this realm,
are passionate about these issues and would welcome working with the Department potentially with
the creation of a small working committee to further develop this discussion should it be considered
appropriate.
In closing despite the number of proposed changes and commentary, the Institute considers much
of the frustrations do not lie so much in the regulation itself but rather their application which can
only be improved through a collective and collaborative dialogue.
Yours sincerely
PHILIP GRIFFITHS FRAIA RIBA M.ICOMOS
STATE PRESIDENT WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Page 6 of 6