COUNCIL MEETING 23 APRIL 2024
Reports to Council
(Item 21/24) Explanation of Intended
Effect (Eie) - Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms
File No: 24/7883
Report By Director City Strategy
Summary
This report provides details of
the low and mid-rise housing reforms drafted by the Department of Planning
Housing & Infrastructure (DPHI) and outlines the extent to which these
reforms will likely impact the Burwood Local Government Area (LGA). An
Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) was released by DPHI on 15 December 2023
and was open for submissions until 23 February 2023.
An interim submission to the
reforms was prepared by Council staff and issued to DPHI to ensure receipt
within the formal exhibition period. This interim submission is provided to
Councillors for endorsement and formal submission to DPHI.
The interim submission raises
concern with the blanket application of increasing dwelling densities without
any substantial place-based considerations. The submission states that this approach
undermines the significant strategic evidence-based work undertaken by Council
involving broad community engagement to date, to achieve the State Government
objective of delivering more housing.
Operational Plan Objective
C.3 An urban environment that maintains
and enhances our sense of identity and place.
C.3.1 Facilitate
well designed, high quality and sustainable land use and development that is
appropriately scaled to complement its surroundings.
C3.2 Protect our unique built heritage and maintain
or enhance local character.
C.4 Sustainable, integrated transport,
infrastructure and networks to support population growth and improve
liveability and productivity.
C.4.2 Plan for a city that is safe, accessible and easy to get
to and move around in.
Background
In October 2022, the National
Housing Accord (Accord) was introduced with a national five-year target of one
million well-located new homes by June 2029.
In August 2023, National Cabinet
announced a revised five-year target of 1.2 million well-located dwellings from
mid-2024. The NSW Government committed to deliver at least 314,000 new homes by
mid-2029, with a stretch goal of 377,000 dwellings.
The Accord requires that the NSW
Government work in collaboration with councils on changes to meet the five-year
housing target, with an agreement to: ‘commit to working with local
governments to deliver planning and land-use reforms that will make housing
supply more responsive to demand over time, with further work to be agreed
under the Accord.’
In December 2023, the NSW
Government announced three housing reforms to assist with the delivery of at
least 314,000 new homes by 2029.
The three Housing Reforms are
outlined below:
1. Infill Affordable Housing Bonus Scheme within
the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing SEPP) 2021 – in force
from 14 December 2023.
This Scheme allows bonus height and floor space ratio
of up to 30% for development that provides up to 15% of its dwellings as
affordable housing for a period of 15 years. This scheme is in effect and
applies to all development in Burwood LGA that provides at least 15% of its
dwellings as affordable housing.
2. Draft Transport Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP –
proposes to rezone 31 ‘TOD’ precincts, including Croydon, to allow
six storey apartment development within 400 metres of railway stations to come
into effect in April 2024 (now January 2025 for Croydon).
A report on the submission to the Draft Transport
Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP was considered by Council on 13 February 2024.
Council staff prepared an interim submission that recommended Croydon not be
included in the SEPP, or if it was, that the SEPP be delayed to allow a more
robust planning process to take place.
Council resolved to note the interim submission
prepared by staff, update it to include any changes requested by Council and
place it on the Participate Burwood website. Council also resolved to support
staff to continue liaising with DPHI in relation to the preparation of the SEPP
controls, and also for staff to commence identifying alternate planning options
for the Croydon Precinct as identified in the SEPP.
3. Draft Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP –
proposes changes to permissibility and controls in all residential areas across
Greater Sydney, the Hunter, Central Coast and Illawarra to encourage more low
to mid-rise housing. The EIE was on exhibition for public comment from 15
December 2023 until 23 February 2024. A copy of the EIE is included under
Attachment 1. Again, due to the exhibition timeframes, Council staff provided
an interim response within the exhibition timeframes which can be found under
Attachment 2.
This report provides details on the Draft Low to
Mid-Rise Housing SEPP and recommendations for Council’s consideration.
Summary of the Draft EIE -
Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP
The proposed reforms introduce a
number of planning changes that aim to expand the permissibility of low and
mid-rise housing across Metropolitan Sydney, which include:
1. Low-rise housing - permit multi-dwelling housing
(terraces) and manor houses in low density zones (R2) that are within station
and town centre precincts;
2. Allow dual occupancy development and subdivision of
dual occupancy development in all low density residential zones (R2) in Greater
Sydney (already permitted in Burwood LGA);
3. Mid-rise housing - permit residential flat buildings in
medium density zones (R3) within station and town centre precincts; and
4. Introduce non-refusal standards for the above forms of
development.
Essentially, these reforms will
be allowing types of medium density development in low density zones, and types
of high-density development (up to six (6) storeys) in medium density zones.
The reforms introduce new
terminology to the planning system, including:
· Low-rise
housing;
· Mid-rise
housing;
· Station
and Town Centre Precincts (well-located areas); and
· Non-refusal
standards.
These terms are important in the
context of the reforms, in order to understand the impacts to the Burwood LGA,
and are discussed below.
What is defined as low-rise
housing?
Low-rise housing refers to
multi-dwelling housing* (such as terraces and townhouses), manor houses** and
dual occupancies as identified in Figure 1 below. This type of housing is
generally one or two stories, sometimes incorporating a habitable roof space.
For the purposes of these reforms it does not include freestanding houses.
Figure 1: Low rise housing
typologies L-R dual occupancy, multi-dwelling housing (terraces), manor houses.
Source: Extract from DPHI's
Fact Sheet on Low and Mid-Rise Housing showing Mid Rise Housing –
residential flat buildings and shop top housing.
* multi-dwelling housing means
3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each
with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.
Examples include townhouse and villa style developments.
**manor house means a
residential flat building containing 3 or 4 dwellings, where— (a) each
dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall or floor, and (b) at
least 1 dwelling is partially or wholly located above another dwelling, and (c)
the building contains no more than 2 storeys (excluding any basement). (Source:
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes)
2008).
What is defined as mid-rise housing?
Mid-rise housing refers to apartment buildings (residential
flat buildings) and shop-top housing that is generally between 3 and 6 stories
in height as identified in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Mid-rise housing
typologies L-R residential flat buildings and shop top housing.
Source: Extract from DPHI's
Fact Sheet on Low and Mid-Rise Housing showing Mid Rise Housing –
residential flat buildings and shop top housing.
Station and Town Centre
Precincts
The reforms propose to introduce
station and town centre precincts in order to identify areas that are
“well-located.” The EIE includes the definition below:
“A
station and town centre precinct is defined as:
· Within
the Six Cities Region, and
· 800m
walking distance of heavy rail, metro or light rail stations, or
· 800m
walking distance of land zoned E2 Commercial Centre or SP5 Metropolitan Centre,
or
· 800m
walking distance of land zoned E1 Local Centre or MU1 Mixed Use but only if
the zone contains a wide range of frequently needed goods and services such as
full line supermarkets, shops and restaurants.”
It is noted that the definition
of station and town centre precincts is vague and lacks sufficient detail. The
definition relies on an 800m walking distance area, not as the ‘crow
flies’ distance. The DPHI has confirmed that they do not intend to
introduce mapping with the reforms, which raises significant issues as to where
exactly the proposed precincts will apply.
Elements of the reforms are not
supported by existing legislation, and are left to interpretation, for
instance, the reforms provide no definition for a ‘full-line
supermarket’ and there is no definition in the Standard Instrument LEP.
As part of the exhibition of the
reforms, DPHI is seeking input from councils to determine which E1 and MU1
centres contain an appropriate level of goods, services and amenities to be
included as a ‘station and town centre’ precinct.
For the purpose of this report, a
‘station and town centre precinct’ within the Burwood LGA is
defined as follows:
|
Definition
|
Station and Town Centre
Precincts – Burwood LGA
|
|
800m walking distance of heavy
rail, metro or light rail stations
|
Burwood Station
Burwood North Metro Station
(future)
Croydon Station
Strathfield Station
|
|
800m walking distance of land
zoned E2 Commercial Centre or SP5 Metropolitan Centre
|
Does not apply to Burwood LGA -
no land zoned E2 or SP5 in LGA
|
|
800m walking distance of land
zoned E1 Local Centre or MU1 Mixed Use but only if the zone contains a
wide range of frequently needed goods and services such as full line
supermarkets, shops and restaurants
|
E1 – Enfield (IGA)
|
Map 1 (following) shows 400m and
800m radii from Strathfield, Burwood and Croydon Stations, and the Enfield E1
Local Centre.
There are also centres which are
in adjoining LGAs that will impact on development in the Burwood LGA. It should
be noted that these are indicative based on initial discussions with the
adjoining councils, but may include:
· Belfield
Centre (Canterbury Bankstown LGA)
· Kings
Bay Centre (Canada Bay LGA).
The following precincts are
proposed to be excluded on the basis that they do not include a “wide
range of frequently needed goods and services such as full line supermarkets,
shops and restaurants”:
· Croydon
Park Centre (zoned E1 formerly zoned B2 – Local Centre) - Georges
River Road
· Croydon
Park (zoned E1 formerly zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) - Nos.
2-12 Tangarra Street and Nos. 1-9 Tangarra Street (between Tavistock Street and
Portland Street)
· Burwood
Heights (zoned E1 formerly zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) –
Nos. 40-44 Claremont Road (corner of Arthur St).
Non-Refusal Standards
Non-refusal standards are used in
the planning system to set consistent standards for certain types of
development and are typically within a state environmental planning policy and
overrule local environmental plan or development control plan standards that
are more onerous than the non-refusal standard.
If a non-refusal standard is met,
the consent authority cannot refuse the development application on that basis,
despite the local provisions that may apply. If the local environmental plan or
development control plan standard is already more permissive than the
non-refusal standard, it will continue to apply.
Matters such as view loss and
heritage, not addressed by a non-refusal standard, will continue to be assessed
in accordance with the local environmental plan and development control plan
standards. In this regard, the EIE states: “All other applicable
planning controls in Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans
such as heritage and environmental considerations will continue to apply to the
extent they are not inconsistent with these new standards.”
Proposed Low-Rise Housing
Reforms
In terms of low-rise housing, two
major changes are proposed as part of the reforms:
1. Permit multi-dwelling housing (terraces and townhouses)
and manor houses in low density residential zones (R2) that are within station
and town centre precincts; and
2. Allow dual occupancy development in all low density
residential zones (R2) in Greater Sydney.
Proposed Low Rise Housing
Reforms in Low Density Residential (R2) Zones
The low rise housing provisions
propose to make multi-dwelling housing (terraces and townhouses) and manor
houses permissible in the R2 Low Density Zone within the station and
town centre precincts.
The changes to permissibility are
outlined in the table below:
|
Typology
|
Proposed permissibility
change
|
Effect of change on Burwood
LGA
|
|
Manor houses
|
Make manor houses permitted
with consent in the Low Density Residential (R2) zone within Station and Town
Centre Precincts in the Six Cities Region*.
|
Change – Manor
Houses (as a type of residential flat building (RFB)) will become permissible
in R2 zone land that is within 800m of a railway station, and land zoned E1
Local Centre or MU1 Station and Town Centre Precinct).
|
|
Multi-dwelling housing (MDH)
(terraces and townhouses)
|
Make MDH (terraces and
townhouses) permitted with consent in the Low density Residential (R2) zone
within Station and Town Centre Precincts in the Six Cities Region*.
|
Change – MDH
(terraces and townhouses) will become permissible in R2 zone land that is
within 800m of a rail station, and land zoned E1 Local Centre or MU1 Station
and Town Centre Precinct).
|
The geographical extent of the
potential impact to the R2 Low Density Zone across the Burwood LGA is
identified in Map 1 below:
Map 1 – Extent of R2 zoned land within 800m of
station and town centre precinct
Note: areas highlighted white indicate
the extent of the R1, R3 and open space zones, and roads.
In addition to changes in
permissibility of these types of development, the reforms also introduce
non-refusal standards that set heights and floor space ratios (FSR) which, if
met, cannot be reasons for refusal of a development.
Currently, under the Burwood LEP
2012, multi-dwelling housing in the form of townhouses and terraces, along with
manor houses, are not permitted in the R2 zone. The reforms will allow these
forms of development within the precincts.
In the R2 zone, heights and FSRs
are also currently generally limited to 8.5m and 0.55:1, respectively.
The
non-refusal standards for each of the typologies is summarised in Figure 3
below:
Figure 3: Non-refusal
standards for multi-dwelling housing and manor houses.
In summary:
· Multi
dwelling housing and terraces, will become permissible in R2 Low Density zones
within station and centre precincts at increased densities and heights
(8.5m to 9.5m and 0.55:1 – 0.7:1).
· Manor
houses will become permissible in R2 Low Density zones within station and
centre precincts at increased densities and heights (8.5m to 9.5m and
0.55:1 – 0.8:1). Manor houses will continue to be limited to two storeys
but there will be no limit on dwelling numbers. This means that manor houses
are effectively two storey residential flat buildings.
Currently, much of the R2 zone in
the Burwood LGA within 800m of stations and town centres tends to be single
residential homes of generally one or two stories in height. These reforms will
allow lots of over 500m2 to be redeveloped into terraces or manor
houses with three to four dwellings on each lot (even more for larger lots).
Lots of over 600m2 may be redeveloped into multi-dwelling housing
with four or more dwellings on each. The potential level of development may
increase where lots are amalgamated into larger sites.
It is difficult to gauge the
exact yield that will result from the changes. Much of the area within 800m of
the Burwood North Metro Station (and some within 800m of the Burwood Train
Station) is covered by the Burwood North Precinct Masterplan which contemplates
more intense forms of development. A large portion of the area within 800m of
Croydon Station is within a heritage conservation area, and the relationship
between the reforms and other planning controls is unclear. It is also
difficult to predict the level of take-up of these reforms over time given many
landowners may prefer their single house development form.
Proposed Dual Occupancy
Development in Low Density Zones
The reforms propose to allow dual
occupancy development in all low density zones across Greater Sydney. The
reforms are unclear as to whether this will apply to both the R1 (General
Residential) and the R2 (Low density residential), or just the R2 zone.
The Burwood LEP 2012 already
permits this form of development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone,
however there are proposed to be changes to the development standards, as they
currently apply under the LEP. These are outlined in the below table:
|
Typology
|
Development standard
|
Existing
|
Proposed non-refusal
standard
|
|
Dual Occupancy
|
Building Height (max)
|
8.5m
|
9.5m
|
|
FSR (max)
|
0.55:1
|
0.65:1
|
|
Site Area (min)
|
500m2 (attached)
600m2 (detached)
|
450m2
|
|
Site Width (min)
|
12m (DCP)
|
12m
|
|
Car parking (min)
|
1 space per dwelling
|
1 space per dwelling
|
|
Subdivision
|
Lot must have a minimum site
area of 800m2 and a minimum 24m frontage to permit subdivision of dual occupancy
|
Permissible where lots meet lot
size, width and access requirements (as above).
|
Table
1: Proposed changes to dual occupancy development standards.
It is also noted that the EIE
does not differentiate between attached and detached dual occupancies.
Clarification is required that the reforms solely seek changes to attached dual
occupancies. Inclusion of detached dual occupancies with subsequent Torrens
subdivision could result in the creation of dwelling houses on lots down to
225sqm.
The reduction in the minimum lot
size for dual occupancy development from 500m2 to 450m2
will have a negligible impact on the number sites across the LGA where dual
occupancy development could be undertaken (2,248 sites vs 2,491 sites).
However, the proposed reduction to the subdivision requirements of a dual
occupancy will potentially have a greater impact on the uptake of dual
occupancy development across the LGA.
Initial calculations indicate
there are currently 2,400 lots which would comply under the proposed controls
for dual occupancy and subdivision. An assumed uptake rate of 60%, would result
in an additional 1,440 dwellings across the LGA and would also result in
providing housing diversity across the LGA. It would be slightly higher if R1
zones are included. It is also noted that many of these lots would be within
the station precincts and zoned R2, and higher density development forms are
also now permitted, such as terraces and manor houses. Owners may propose these
forms of development rather than dual occupancies.
Proposed Mid-Rise Housing
Reforms
In terms of mid-rise housing, the
draft reforms propose to introduce non-refusal standards and will allow:
· Residential
flat buildings (RFBs) in the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone within
“station and town centre precincts” (Note: RFBs are currently
prohibited in the R3 zone under the provisions of Burwood LEP 2012), and
· Shop
top housing wherever they are currently permitted – shop top housing is
permitted in the R1 General Residential Zone, R3 Medium Density Zone, E1 Local
Centre Zone and MU1 Mixed Use Zone and under the Burwood LEP 2012.
These changes essentially permit
what may be considered higher-density development in medium density zoned
areas. The majority of R3 zoned areas within Burwood LGA are within 800m of a
station, aside from the R3 zoned areas along Georges River Road. There are
approximately 100-200 R3 zoned lots within station or town centre precincts,
although the number of lots isn’t particularly high, the lots tend to be
larger on average.
Map 2 below shows 400m and 800m
radii from Strathfield, Burwood and Croydon Stations, and the Enfield E1 Local
Centre. A similar radius from the proposed Burwood North Metro Station also
applies. The R3 zones are the darker red areas.
Map 2: 400m and 800m extent from station and town
centre precinct.
The proposed development
standards are based on distance from the station and town centre precinct, as
follows:
· Where
a site is within a station and town centre precinct, and within 400m of the
station or town centre precinct, residential flat buildings and shop top
housing, a height of 21m (as a non-refusal standard) and a FSR of 3:1 applies;
· Where
a site is within a station and town centre precinct and located 400m to 800m of
the station or town centre, residential flat buildings and shop top housing, a
height of 16m (as a non-refusal standard) and FSR of 2:1 applies;
· No
minimum site area or lot width applies.
No guidance is provided as to
where the 400m or 800m is measured from in terms of a station or where a town
centre might be accurately located. As mentioned previously, the definition of
station and town centre precincts is vague and lacks sufficient detail. The
definition relies on an 800m walking distance area, not as the ‘crow
flies’ distance.
The DPHI has confirmed that they
do not intend to introduce mapping with the reforms, which raises significant
issues as to where exactly the proposed precincts will apply.
The intent of the policy is that
the proposed changes would apply in heritage conservation areas and to heritage
items, although heritage impacts will remain a consideration.
In addition, it is likely that
applicants would be able to use both the reforms under the Draft SEPP and the
bonus FSR and height provisions for affordable housing under the recent changes
to the Housing SEPP. These include bonus height and FSR of up to 30% for
projects that include at least 10-15% of gross floor area (GFA) dedicated to
affordable housing for 15 years. This will potentially increase building
heights up to eight storeys within 400m of the station and town centre
precincts.
How Will the Proposed Mid-Rise
Changes Impact the Burwood LGA?
It is important to note that much
of the Burwood LGA will be affected by the mid-rise reforms, aside from areas
south of Henley Park and Georges River Road (subject to there not being any
station and town centre precincts identified within 800m in the adjoining LGA).
It is also noteworthy that the effect of the changes will vary across the
affected area.
Low-rise example
Taking a typical R2 zoned
residential lot within a Station precinct, it currently might have a single
two-storey freestanding house on a 750m2 lot. Under the current LEP
it may be able to be redeveloped into a dual occupancy development. Under the
reforms multi-dwelling development such as townhouses is possible with an FSR
of 0.7:1. This would allow up to five townhouses (at 105m2 each), up
to three stories tall, on that same lot.
It is likely that the biggest
impact of this reform would be found within 800m of Croydon Station and the
Enfield Centre, much of which is zoned R2. Much of the area close to Croydon
and south of the railway is within the heritage conservation area and it is
unclear to what extent the reforms may apply.
There would be less of an impact
within 800m of Strathfield Station as much of this land is zoned MU1 or R1.
There would also be no impact close to Burwood Station as this land is zoned
MU1, however there would be some impact outside the MU1 zone and still within
800m of the station. Land close to Burwood North Metro and north of the Burwood
Town Centre is subject to the Burwood North Masterplan, where higher density
forms of development are likely to become dominant over time.
Medium-rise example
Taking a similar sized lot in the
R3 zone within a station precinct (400-800m from the station), it may already
be developed into dual occupancy type development, or may typically have two or
three units built upon it (or it may be a single freestanding home). The
reforms would allow residential flat buildings of up to 16m to be built at an
FSR of 2:1. This would allow a 15-unit apartment (at 100m2 each)
building over five stories to be built on the site.
This reform is likely to apply
over most R3 zoned areas in the LGA, aside from those close to Georges River
Road. The R3 zone between Lucas and Cheltenham Roads is only just touched
by the 800m radii and will likely be outside an 800m walking distance. About
half of the R3 zone on Croydon Avenue is captured, however only a handful of
those lots would be impacted by the reform.
If enacted, the reforms would be
transformative to the built form planning controls and overall character in the
Burwood LGA. The reforms will result in substantially larger buildings, higher
dwelling yields and greater future population growth than Council and the
community have anticipated.
To understand the impact of the
proposed reforms, a case study was undertaken in the Enfield Centre for the
land zoned E1, as identified in Map 3 below.
Map 3: Enfield Centre – 400/800m radius –
station and town centre precinct.
This area contains an IGA
supermarket and would be classified as a station and town centre precinct.
There are currently approximately 3,100 existing dwellings within an 800m
radius of the land zoned E1. The majority of the affected area is zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. There are pockets of R1 zoned land and R3 zoned
land.
The maximum development potential
offered by the proposed reforms has been applied to all properties that are
located within the identified area, with the exception of heritage items and
sites that are strata-titled or are currently under construction.
To calculate the proposed yield, the following assumptions
have been used:
· Sites between
450sqm – 499sqm will have the potential for dual occupancy development,
with subdivision.
· Manor houses in
the R2 Zones for sites with a minimum site area of 500sqm and a maximum 4
dwellings.
· 6 storey RFBs or
shop-top housing in E1, R1 and R3 Zones within 400m of the E1 zone.
· 5 storeys RFBs or
shop-top housing in the R1 Zone within 400-800m of the E1 zone.
· 5 storey shop-top
housing in R3 zone within 400-800m of the E1 zone.
Based on these assumptions, and assuming a 100% uptake, the
potential increase in dwellings is approximately 6,700, resulting in an
additional population of approximately 17,000 people. This has a significant
impact on the planning and provision of future infrastructure (refer to Table 2
below).
|
|
Existing lots that have capacity
|
Additional new dwellings
|
Equivalent additional Population (at 2.5
persons/dwelling)
|
|
Existing dwellings
|
3,142
|
-
|
-
|
|
Full take up of dual occupancies (450-499)
|
248
|
248
|
620
|
|
Full take up of manor houses (500+)
|
825
|
2,475
|
6,188
|
|
Full take up of RFBs
|
236
|
2,687
|
6718
|
|
Full take up of shop-top housing
|
201
|
1,282
|
3205
|
|
Total
|
-
|
6,692
|
16,730
|
The reforms abandon long-term
strategic planning processes which have been carefully constructed with input
from the community and with the guidance of successive State governments, as
well as the now dissolved Greater Cities Commission. The increased dwelling
yields and resulting population that would be realised under the proposals
would:
· Place
additional strain on already stretched infrastructure and services;
· Be
inconsistent with Burwood’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local
Housing Strategy; and
· Irrevocably
alter the character of those areas outside of our key centres.
The reforms would result in
development without planning, the impacts of which will be recognised overtime
when it is too late.
Proposed Amendments to the
Apartment Design Guide (ADG) for Low and Mid-Rise Housing
Further to the above proposed
non-refusal development standards, the reforms seek reduced Apartment Design
Guide (ADG) design standards for setbacks, landscape, communal open space,
vehicle access and car parking. DPHI argues that these measures will ensure
that design controls applying to mid-rise developments are appropriately
differentiated to facilitate smaller apartment buildings of up to six stories.
Building Separation
Reducing minimum building
separation requirements. For buildings between 5 to 6 storeys, it is proposed
to match the current requirements for up to 4-storey buildings.
Currently the ADG requires the
following separation requirements for buildings up to 4 storeys:
· 12m
between habitable rooms/balconies;
· 9m
between habitable and non-habitable rooms;
· 6m
between non-habitable rooms;
and for buildings between from 5,
up to 8 storeys:
· 18m
between habitable rooms/balconies;
· 12m
between habitable and non-habitable rooms; and
· 9m
between non-habitable rooms.
Reducing setbacks between
habitable spaces from 18m to 12m on the fifth and sixth floors would have a
noticeable impact to residents of those dwellings.
Setbacks
Front setbacks to be the average
of neighbouring buildings with a newly introduced 6m maximum provision. Side
and rear building setback requirements are to increase by an additional 1m, for
every 2-storey difference in height between neighbouring buildings.
Vehicle Access
Design of basement and ground
floor for mid-rise buildings is not required to accommodate large vehicles
entering or turning around within the site. Waste collection method is to be
detailed in a waste management plan provided by the applicant as part of any
future development application (DA). This change would make it more challenging
to require fully internal waste disposal for significantly large buildings.
Visual Privacy
The EIE says this is “to be
managed though the proposed modified building and separation provisions”
with no further explanation of how this important issue might be better
managed.
Communal Open Space
A minimum of 8m2 of communal open
space is to be provided per apartment, up to a maximum 25% of the site area.
Currently the ADG requires
communal open space to have a minimum area equal to 25% of the site,
irrespective of the number of apartments provided. This change could
effectively reduce onsite communal open space, depending on site area. The
reason for applying a maximum here is not explained.
Car Parking
Minimum car parking rates (as
detailed above) for mid-rise housing across the Six Cities. This change reduces
Council’s current (general) rate where larger apartments are provided.
Heritage and Heritage
Conservation Areas
Under the reforms all other
applicable controls in LEPs and DCPs including heritage will “continue to
apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with the proposed changes”.
It is unclear what this means in the future application of the SEPP.
The reforms provide insufficient
detail on how the changes would address the impacts of increased density on
heritage items and HCAs. Council officers have made several requests to
the DPHI to clarify the implications, however no further information has been
provided. The reforms will undermine local provisions that protect heritage and
will likely lead to the loss of significant fabric from heritage items and
contributory buildings, and produce secondary impacts such as overshadowing
issues and poor design outcomes.
Infrastructure and Value
Capture
The reforms lack consideration of
infrastructure constraints.
There is no commitment in the EIE
to provide Council with any additional means of funding local infrastructure
that will be required to meet the demands of a larger residential population.
It is noted that the Housing and Productivity contributions are now collected
when new dwellings are constructed. However, these funds are allocated by NSW
Treasury and spent anywhere in Greater Sydney. Accordingly, there is no
guarantee that the Burwood LGA will receive any funding. This is a significant
oversight, given section 7.12 revenue is comparably minor and is not intended
to support growth on the scale envisaged.
Additionally, there has been no
proposal to capture any of the uplift in land values that would be generated
from the proposed controls. A complementary contributions scheme could be used
to raise money for local infrastructure provision or affordable housing
delivery. Instead, private landowners will financially benefit from the
reforms, and not the wider community bearing the impacts of increased
development.
Key Issues Raised in Council’s
Submission
The interim submission provided
at Attachment 2, has been prepared by Council officers in response to the
proposed reforms. Whilst supportive of introducing measures to address the
emerging housing crisis, the interim submission raises significant concerns
with the proposed one-size-fits-all approach outlined within the EIE.
The principal concern with the
proposal is the move away from long-term strategic planning processes which
have been carefully constructed with input from the community and the guidance
of successive governments led by a variety of planning ministers as well as
having received approval by the now dissolved Greater Cities Commission of
Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and endorsed Local
Housing Strategy.
If enacted, the proposals
outlined within the EIE could irrevocably alter the character of neighbourhoods
across many parts of the Burwood LGA and represent a transformative change to
Burwood’s neighbourhood character and could result in substantially
larger built forms, dwelling yield and future population than Council and the
community had anticipated.
Of
particular concern are the following points:
· The
untimely release of the EIE just before the Christmas break.
· The
lack of consultation with Council and its community and the timeframe for
implementation of the policy changes.
· The
failure to provide the technical studies and assumptions utilised for the
decision.
· Bypassing
Council’s strategic planning framework processes with policy that is not
accompanied by robust evidence.
· Lack
of detail to ensure that these areas are supported by adequate and appropriate
infrastructure to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population.
· The introduction of a “one-size fits
all” policy, regardless of location and constraints which will ultimately
result in a significant degradation of the character in parts of the Burwood
LGA.
· Removing Council and the
community from the decision making process.
· A
failure by the State Government to provide councils with new housing targets,
with the approach seemingly to be provide as much as possible, wherever
possible.
· Amendments
to the Apartment Design Guide which propose to vary/ reduce the standards and
which would result in an adverse amenity and liveability outcomes.
· The
impact of population growth without an appropriate infrastructure pipeline and
the imposition of a significant cost burden on Council for additional
infrastructure.
· Inadequate
detail on the wording of proposed instruments to enact the proposed changes.
· The
anticipated speed at which the State Government will progress with intents to
enact this legislation.
It is also questionable whether the approach is the
best method to achieve the aims of the DPHI. Introducing differing requirements
to zones based on a vague distance adds confusion to the planning system and
will likely lead to inconsistent application of development requirements, at
best. It also detracts from the transparency of the Standard Instrument LEP,
which introduced standardised zones to ensure clarity and transparency.
The interim
submission provided several recommendations for consideration by DPHI:
Recommendation A
Council requests that DPHI not
include the Burwood LGA in the proposed SEPP.
This would allow DPHI to work
collaboratively with Council to realise housing opportunities by providing new
housing targets for the Burwood LGA in line with the National Housing Accord
Requirements.
To ensure there is a pipeline
of available land across Burwood LGA for the delivery of housing, the following
is recommended to take place over the next 12 months:
· Finalise
the planning framework for the Burwood North Precinct
· Investigate
other opportunities which could support increased capacity to deliver
additional housing
· Council
be provided an opportunity to present a Council led Well-Located Housing
Delivery Plan.
Recommendation B
Should DPHI seek to progress
with the inclusion of the Burwood LGA in the proposed SEPP notwithstanding the
requests in Recommendation A (above), Council requests that prior to the
commencement of the provisions of the SEPP:
(i) The
implementation of the SEPP is delayed, to allow Council to undertake a robust
planning process to investigate opportunities and/or identify alternative
precincts which could facilitate a pipeline for the delivery of housing.
(ii) Financial
support is provided to Council to assist in undertaking an expedited review (to
be completed before August 2024). This would include the preparation of any
relevant supporting studies which would inform a comprehensive review of the
current BLEP, to establish the vision, principles for the Precinct/s. This
would then be supported by an Implementation Plan of the SEPP.
(iii) Council
is given the opportunity to review and provide feedback on any modelling and
technical studies that informed the proposed changes, including but not limited
to:
o Planning
assumptions
o Criteria
for the selection of impacted areas
o Spatial
data
o Feasibility
analysis
o Infrastructure
capacity analysis – road and rail network
o Infrastructure
needs analysis – open space, community facilities
o Streetscape
character analysis and heritage assessment
o Constraints
mapping.
(iv) DPHI
collaborate with Council on any proposed planning objectives and controls to
ensure that future development does not result in diminishing the heritage and
streetscape character values which may result in poor built form outcomes and
irreversible impacts on the amenity of existing residents.
(v) DPHI
provide information on the proposed Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme
including the proposed mechanisms to ensure the delivery of affordable housing
across the Precinct.
(i) DPHI
provide information on any assessment that has been undertaken with respect to
required infrastructure to support the future growth and how the delivery of
new infrastructure (open space, community facilities etc.) is proposed to be
funded (delivery and ongoing maintenance). This would enable a review of the
local infrastructure contributions framework to be completed consistent with
the NSW Productivity Commissioner’s recommendations so as to ensure the
real cost of providing the required infrastructure in the Sydney Metro context
is captured.
Note: The above information is critical for Council to
gain an insight as to the intended effects and to confirm if the technical data
and assumptions align with Council’s assessment.
Financial Implications
The Department’s approach
to require Council to complete a planning strategy that reflects or exceeds the
controls will require additional human and financial resource, currently not
budgeted for. It should be noted that there have been significant resource
implications associated with reviewing and analysing the impact of the reforms,
as multiple staff have been involved in preparing the interim submission for
the EIE and the draft TOD SEPP. At this stage, the extent of the resourcing
requirements and budget is not known should the proposed reforms be introduced.
As a result of the increased
development there may also be impacts to current infrastructure funding for the
identification and delivery of new infrastructure and for ongoing maintenance.
Conclusion
Prompted
by the housing targets identified in the Accord, the EIE: Changes to Create
Low and Mid-Rise Housing was placed on public exhibition on 15 December
2023.
The reforms are not supported by
an evidence base that demonstrates the changes proposed would fulfil the
objective of creating more in-fill low and mid-rise housing to meet the
five-year housing target under the Accord, nor do they show any consideration
for local character. Based on the EIE, an interim
submission was provided to DPHI on 23 February 2024.
Following this report and
Council’s resolution, Council officers will be able to make a
further/revised submission to the Department.
Recommendation(s)
1. That Council note the interim submission to DPHI on the EIE: Changes to Create Low and Mid-Rise Housing.
2. That the General Manager be delegated authority to make changes to the
interim submission to include any changes requested by Council in order to
submit a Council endorsed submission to DPHI.
Attachments
1 DPHI - EIE:
Changes to create low and mid-rise housing
2 Interim
Submission to DPHI - EIE Low and Mid-rise Housing
