Draft Rockdale LEP 2011 and the Draft Rockdale DCP 2011 Documents
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2011 1:05 PM
Subject: Submission in Response to Draft Rockdale LEP 2011 and Draft Rockdale DCP 2011
Dear Sir,
Re: Submission in Response to Draft Rockdale LEP 2011 and Draft Rockdale DCP 2011
I refer to our recent telephone conversation concerning the abovementioned draft Planning Controls.
Firstly, thank you for allowing me additional time to lodge this brief submission in relation to the abovementioned draft documents. Your courtesy is greatly appreciated.
I confirm that I have inspected the subject properties and also examined the draft Planning Controls, being draft Rockdale DCP 2011 and draft Rockdale LEP 2011.
I wish to provide my brief comments on the draft documents particularly in relation to the issue of Floor Space Ratio (FSR).
I provide the following comments based on my qualifications and experience. I am a Consultant Planner with a Bachelor of Town Planning Degree from UNSW, Sydney and a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) Degree from the University of Technology, Sydney including a High Distinction in Environmental Studies. I was previously employed in 3 Local Government Councils for 15 years including 9 years as Senior Development Control Planner. I currently operate a private consultancy practice. I have appeared as an Expert Planning Witness for 8 Local Government Councils in the Land and Environment Court and have been appointed in numerous Appeals as a Court Appointed Planning Expert.
I should firstly state that I consider that there are numerous meritorious elements of the draft Planning Controls. However, my primary concern is the proposed application of a 2.0:1 FSR Control for the proposed B2 Local Centre zoning for the abovementioned properties. As I read the draft Planning Controls, the subject site is proposed to have a 2.0:1 FSR Control with a 22 metre Height Control. In my view, I consider that the application of a 2.0:1 FSR Control for the subject properties (and other similarly zoned adjoining properties) is inappropriate and unreasonable for a range of reasons including the following;
§ Firstly, it is my view that an FSR Control is not the most effective Planning Control to achieve the desired Building Envelopes for the subject properties. On this point, I note the previous advice of the Department of Planning which describes an FSR Control as a “crude Planning Control”. I professionally endorse that view and express the view that there are far more desirable and effective Planning Controls (eg Height and Setbacks) to achieve desired Building Envelope objectives. Whilst the Department of Planning has recently supported an FSR Control in new Local Environmental Plans, the FSR Control should not be at odds or in conflict with the other main Building Envelope Controls. For the reasons cited below, I consider that the 2.0:1 FSR Control proposed for the subject properties is at odds with the other Building Envelope Controls under the draft DCP.
§ As I read the draft planning documents, the subject properties will have a Height Control of 22 metres (which equates 7 storeys in height). This objective of a 7 storey facade is echoed in Part 5.3 Mixed Use of the draft DCP wherein there are frequent references to 6 or more storey developments. In fact, I was the Planning Consultant for an existing Mixed Use Development in Double Bay which is highlighted as one of the meritorious developments in Part 5.3 of the draft DCP. Thus, Council clearly intends that the subject properties (and immediately adjoining properties of similar zoning) should achieve a front facade of 6-7 storeys being equivalent to 22 metres in height. However, Council will not achieve this desired Building Envelope objective of 7 storeys if a 2.0:1 FSR Control is applied. Simply put, if a party seeks a 7 storey development on the subject properties that is limited to a FSR Control of 2.0:1, then the proposed building would have to be limited to a maximum of approximately 1/3 of the site rising to a height of 7 storeys. The proposed building would only occupy 1/3 of the site at each of its 7 levels. The mathematics are clear as below;
0.3 (being approximately 1/3 of the site) x 7 storeys = 2.0:1.
Thus, a 2.0:1 FSR Control with a Height of 22 metres would result in a very slender building occupying only 1/3 of the site which is not achievable.
Simply put, an FSR Control of 2.0:1 would not achieve the desired height of 7 storeys. Even if the FSR Control was increased to 3.0:1 (as proposed for larger sites under the draft DCP), an FSR of 3.0:1 would still not achieve a 7 storey front facade as sought by the draft DCP.
§ Thus, the draft DCP seeks to encourage 7 storey development with a zero front setback. For the abovementioned reasons, I consider that the FSR Control will inhibit such development. Furthermore, the draft DCP contemplates a particular Building Envelope for properties within the Town Centres by reason of the other Planning Controls set out in “Part 5 – Building Types” under the draft DCP. Under Part 5, there are a range of controls particularly in relation to setbacks. For example, Part 5 of the draft DCP sets down the following controls;
1. A zero setback to the front boundary (a setback may be provided above the 3 rd level on a busy road).
2. The lower levels of a building are to be built to side and rear boundaries or be setback no less than 3 metres.
3. For development on a site with rear lane access, development facing the lane should be built to the boundary.
4. A front facade height of 6 to 7 storeys (equivalent to 22 metres).
When one considers points 1 to 4 above, the Building Envelope envisaged under the draft DCP will result in a building substantially in excess of the 2.0:1 FSR Control. Clearly, the FSR Control is totally at odds with the Building Envelope contemplated under the draft DCP. Why is the FSR Control included if the other draft DCP Controls envisage a completely different Building Envelope?
§ The Local Town Centres under the draft DCP are clearly intended to be vital centres with a range of retail, commercial and particularly increased residential development. For example, page 108 of the draft DCP states as follows;
“Rockdale Council encourages a range of uses within its commercial and local centres. These centres serve a vital role in the fabric of the city as they provide convenient retail and services as well as a variety of public spaces which serve as a focus to the community.
Mixed Use Centres can also provide additional residential density in well served areas as they are generally close to public transport nodes. ”
In my view, the limitation imposed by the RFS Control under the draft DCP will inhibit additional development in the Local Town Centres with the consequential effect that the desired objectives contained at page 108 of the draft DCP will not be achieved.
In conclusion, whilst I support the introduction of a 22 metre Height Control to encourage Mixed Use Development and thereby increase the vitality in the Town Centres, I professionally consider that an FSR Control of 2.0:1 (and even 3.0:1) will be at odds with the other Planning Controls and will discourage the form of building type which is encouraged under the draft DCP.
It is my professional view that Council should not impose an FSR Control under its draft LEP or draft DCP. If Council seeks to include an FSR Control, it should increase the FSR figure to a level which reflects the Building Envelope set by the Height and Setbacks under the draft DCP. My preliminary assessment is that an FSR of approximately 6.0:1 would more appropriately reflect the Building Envelope foreshadowed under the draft DCP.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Regards
TONY MOODY
Moody & Doyle Pty Ltd.